OK dude . . just for you I tortured myself for a few minutes watching this person who not only looks like a moron - and who talks like a moron .. but is the real deal true blue moron ..
A "few minutes"???? Did it hurt much? Perhaps you could have tried sampling short stretches at various points in the video to sort of get a general idea without damaging your defensive shields beyond repair.
OK .. "Fact Checking" -- This means you better have checked the facts yourself right ? am I not right ??
Not if you start a logic chopping exercise in which you attribute some narrow meaning to the expression. It is usually about how likely a claim is to be true or false, given publicly available information.
So Paddy McDoodle challenges Paddy McGreggor's 400K dead number. The first thing he does is say historically casualty ratio is 3-1 so if 400K dead should be 1.2 million wounded .. and goes on from there .. assuming that this assumption holds for this war .. giving no support for what the actual ratio is .. or if it would be expected to hold given the conditions in this war .. conditions described by all sides as a "meat grinder" .. "war like we have never seen before" said the NATO talking head... MacGreggor stating in one of his talks .. Ukrainian casualties being left on the field .. as retrieving them is too dangerous ..
Regardless -- this is a "Fact Check" which means you should be doing just that .. and he didn't .. you don't make such assumptions in a Fact Check.
That starts at roughly 6:35 in the video. There is no "actual ratio", because neither side actually releases casualty figures, as McBeth points out. He actually showed a document that cited the 3:1 ratio but did not say where that document came from. In my experience (which has involved working with security analysts like him), this kind of assumption is exactly what all intelligence analysts engage in when evaluating claims like the one MacGregor made. He simply pointed out that MacGregor's 400,000 claim would therefore result in Ukraine having only about 100,000 troops left. That's absurd.
but the fun continues .. he supplies a number from a British Tabloid 17,000 KIA .. with no substantiation of where this number came from.. how was derived .. and why this propaganda mouthpiece should be believed ? No analysis of stuff like the daily casualty figures given individually for each battle taking place. .. I watch these updates .. can find many of them . .. and they give what both sides stated Russia and Ukraine .. and the numbers sometimes match .. often do not .. but is somewhere in between .. and there are people that add these numbers up .. 500 dead a day is not uncommon .. sometimes more .. for regular days .. when surging is more. 17,000 KIA gives us 34 days of War .. but, the war has been going on for much longer than 340 days .. or 10 times that amount ... just to give you an indication of how absurd that number is.
but no effort to "Fact Check" .... which would have to invovle estimates given from many sources .. including methods of how was calculated or obtained ..
He just said the The Guardian (not really a tabloid) is usually more accurate then other public sources on the dead-wounded ratio (actually it was 17,500 dead), but he said he thought the number too low. He came up with roughly 100,000 as a more accurate number of overall Ukrainian wounded, many of which would have gone back into battle and possibly be wounded again, inflating those numbers.
Obituaries .. number of graves dug .. Doug says satellite images show a massive graveyard with 120,000 holes .. waiting to be filled. .. major construction project. -- or from daily combat estimates .. or from monthly - updates .. like this from the Russian MOD
Russian MOD estimates Ukraine's counteroffensive casualties
Kiev has lost some 66,000 troops and 7,600 pieces of heavy weaponry in three months, Defense Minister
Russian MOD estimates Ukraine's counteroffensive casualties
That is more than 17,000 dead in 3 months .. clearly .. someone is a complete idiot . so far we have narrowed it down to either .. Moron Fact Check guy .. or Doug and the Russian MOD.
You use the Russian MOD in an RT article as a source? And you take MacGregor's "120,000 holes" claim at face value? McBeth is not the one who is a "complete idiot".
Anyway, McBeth's rating of MacGregor's 400,000 dead claim is "extremely unlikely to be true", and I think he made that case very well. And you missed a lot more analysis of MacGregor that was even more devastating by not continuing to watch, but I understand that your defensive shields must have been overheating at that point.
200,000 Russian troops have been "liquidated" in the full-scale invasion of Ukraine launched by President Vladimir Putin nearly 15 months ago, according to figures released by Kyiv's military.
The staggering losses have damaged the "organizational integrity" of the Russian Armed Forces, Pavel Luzin, a Russian political analyst, told Newsweek.
www.newsweek.com
I chose Newsweek because they have been such hard core propagandists. .. The casualty ratio varies greatly but in general it has been ridiculous 5-1 often 10-1 .. which means that if there are 200K Russians "Liquidated" we are looking at over 1 million ukrainian soldiers liquidated .. which of course is ridiculous -- what we expect from the Kyiv MOD.
.. Sorry friend ... but your boy McDoodle is a moron ... or a CIA Team member.. helping out with the ganda
So now you are trying to do the kind of thing that McBeth does professionally, only with no experience and far less understanding of which sources are reliable. For, example, RT is notorious for cooking its figures, and its Russian articles sometimes differ in content from English versions because of the propaganda values for foreign versus domestic audiences.
Holy carp what a pile of made up nonsense .. I didn't say you was calling Doug an idiot .. but you did jump in on a convo where he had been called a liar.. You now crying out ... I never called him a liar is a joke .. and deflection .
My comments are not endorsements of everything people have said in your arguments with them, so you are the one deflecting here by making false accusations. I think MacGregor is incredibly naïve if he thinks that Ukraine has lost 400K soldiers. If he doesn't actually believe that claim, then that would make him a liar. In any case, the claim is an example of a falsehood by any reasonable calculation, as McBeth pointed out in his factchecking exercise.
You then accuse me of Ad Hom Fallacy ...(showing you don't know what it is) followed by you stating Doug has been interviewd by RT ... which is Ad Hom Fallacy Central
You actually just proved that
you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I was pointing out to you that he was supporting Russia's claims about the war and was, in fact, interviewed by RT multiple times. I gave a link to support the truth of that claim. That isn't an ad hominem fallacy, which is claiming that something is false because of who made the claim.
Then finally when you get around to addressing the topic .. you make a completely unsupported nonsense claim " fairly obvious Doug gets things wrong and uses fallacious reasoning to support his claims"
That was sneaky. You changed what I said and put it in quotes to make it look like my words. I have boldfaced the parts you modified.
"it's fairly obvious from the McBeth critique that he does get things wrong and uses fallacious reasoning to support his claims"
As you can see, I supported my claim by referencing the video, which you admit you only watched a few minutes of. The fact is that you have no way to know what else he said, since the transcripted portion posted in this thread was only a small piece of it and you admittedly didn't watch it.
This is preposterous nonsense given your inability to point out a single falsehood .. your stinger example was not supported .. not proven friend .. and if all you are going on is McDoodle said so .. too bad .. but , as discussed ... this example doesn't count .. for reasons given to you in detail .. the idea that it would .. frankly .. infantile understanding of subject matter .. not that you would .. of course
The stinger reference starts at 22:00 in the video, which you didn't watch. Again, I supported what I said. Your refutation is based on ignorance of the content of the video. Your remark here is typical of most of your criticism--ignorance based on your puzzling unwillingness to check the facts, which should have started with you watching the source that you intended to attack and criticize so vehemently. Again, it isn't McBeth or myself who is behaving in an "infantile" fashion here.