Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I agree. Russia should retreat.
I love how you get all your info from pro-Russian mouthpieces rather than actual facts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I agree. Russia should retreat.
I love how you get all your info from pro-Russian mouthpieces rather than actual facts.
The article claims the violence was started by protesters in December 2013, which is explicitly a lie. The earliest violence was in November, when there was a massive police crackdown on Maidan reporters and protesters. The violence that followed was a direct response to that.
SOURCE: 1 December 2013 Euromaidan riots - Wikipedia
БЕРКУТ РОЗІГНАВ МАЙДАН
“Майдан по-звірячому зачистили. Десятка поранених. Десятки затриманих. Такого Україна ще не бачила” , пише депутат Андрій Шевченко у своєму твітері.www.pravda.com.ua
Weird how your apparently "anti-imperialist" source seems to never mention the police violence AGAINST the protesters (that lead to over 100 deaths and 1000 injuries), nor the draconian anti-protest laws that LEAD to the protests in the first place. But, hey ho.
Then he brings up an example of a Nazi group turning up at the protest, and makes this utterly and hilariously ridiculous statement:
"The violence by far-right groups was evidently condoned by Sen. John McCain who expressed his support for the uprising by addressing the Maidan crowd later that month."
Seriously. That's it. There was a group of violent Nazis who turned up at a mass protest held by HUNDREDS of thousands of people and that makes any support for the protests "condoning far-right groups". I wouldn't write that in a parody.
He then goes on to say this:
"Democratically-elected leaders are removed by electoral defeat, impeachment or votes of no confidence, not by violence."
Which seems like a very weird thing for someone who claims to be anti-authoritarian or anti-imperialist to say. I also find it bizarre that he never mentions WHY the protests started, and neglects to mention Yanukovych's attempt to pass draconian anti-protest laws and arresting of opposition. Nor does he mention Yanukovych's proven ties to Russia, which is odd for someone who cares so much about countries meddling in other country's leadership.
SOURCES: Special Report: Why Ukraine spurned the EU and embraced Russia
Ukraine’s Ex-President Is Convicted of Treason (Published 2019)
Viktor Yanukovych fled the country after being ousted in 2014. The case focused on his effort to hold onto power by asking Vladimir Putin to intervene militarily on his behalf.www.nytimes.com
Profile: Ukraine's ousted President Viktor Yanukovych
Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych has the rare distinction of having been ousted twice from Ukraine's presidency after giant street protests.www.bbc.co.uk
Seems a bit weird, that. But, again, hey ho.
Scrolling down, he utterly fails to present any actual evidence that this was a coup, or that there was any significant US involvement. Again, the Nuland call is LITERALLY ALL THEY HAVE. Two diplomats talking about their preference of leader in Ukraine. And, apparently, that proves it was a US-backed coup rather than a popular revolution that America simply supported.
Full transcript here: Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call
Your source is a proven liar. Be more objective in future.
I've presented facts. You've presented nothing.
I have not "false quoted" you, that's a lie. I just don't respond to the bulk of your posts because about 80% of what you write is factless rhetoric.
Are you serious?
That wasn't me quoting you. -_-
Source for these numbers, please.
When I quote people on the forum, it's in a quote box. When I am writing a logical analogy in the style of a statement, I put it in quotation marks and - importantly - don't attribute it to anyone.
Still nothing of substance? And even less reading comprehension?
Source for 10,000 dead civilians in Ukrain war ... this site has it at 9500 - Ukraine civilian war casualties 2023 | Statista
