3 ms·

> I found no articles as thorough as this one. I don't believe as to if anything is factually wrong Did a physician ever evaluate the child? And were the neigh

> I found no articles as thorough as this one. I don't believe as to if anything is factually wrong Did a physician ever evaluate the child? And were the neighbours’ accounts that the child was unharmed when handed over by the father to the IDF independently verified? Torturing a toddler wouldn’t be out of character for the IDF right now. But just because something is believable doesn’t mean it’s true. The fact that nobody else is reporting on this should be cause for pause.

gibbitz 8mo ago
Did you investigate it? If someone posted that Claude code created a new language that was typesafe and 50% more efficient for LLM coding and 20% faster for a human to review without any details about the language, would you not look it up? No knock on you directly, just an observation about the attitude in our culture. If this is true a child was tortured, if it's false someone is lying and needs to be outed (with facts) so they are not trusted. Neither one is good but is no one looking into it?
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > Did you investigate it? Nope. Rejecting a source doesn’t mean I am obligated to investigate it. As I said, whether this is true or not doesn’t seem particularly politically relevant. It would be interesting to know. But purely for curiosity, not because I think it will have practical effects.
gibbitz 8mo ago
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-toddler-torture-idf-israel-detention-b2947167.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-to... There are details here including quotations from an unnamed doctor. If feel you can't trust the media credentials of the Independent, you could contact them for the identity of the unnamed doctor (who they are likely protecting based on the nature of the conflict) and ask them directly.
- dang 8mo ago
  The doctor is named in the article now, perhaps as part of a later edit. Since people are questioning the objectivity of the other domain, we'll use this link you found for the merged thread. I'll put the original link in the top text.
  - SilverElfin 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Hikikomori 8mo ago
      And we should only trust Israel that never lies?
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > Naming the doctor adds nothing. It’s a doctor from Gaza with an Islamic name, and presumably at a hospital in an area controlled by Hamas All of this requires substantiation. Without it, a named medical professional rendering a medical opinion is credible. > how can such claims accepted without more scrutiny? What does "accepted" mean in this context? I'm forming a personal opinion. Based on the preponderance of evidence–evidence you'll see, in this very thread, I was earlier sceptical of–it looks like serious people are putting their names to the opinion that this toddler was tortured.
      - SilverElfin 8mo ago
        > Without it, a named medical professional rendering a medical opinion is credible. That’s your opinion. I disagree. It’s not credible, because being a “professional” does not mean you are capable of ignoring your own biases, especially when they run deep as they do in this particular conflict. I’ll also point out that the medical opinion you’re referring to lacks any actual details. For example - if the injuries are consistent with a cigarette burn, what specifically makes it “consistent” and how does this medical professional differentiate this possibility from all the other ones? Why is anything substantial conveniently omitted from all these stories, which instead all use the vague phrasing of “consistent with”? Why are there no details on this doctor, where they practice, or their credentials anywhere?

gibbitz 8mo ago

Did you investigate it? If someone posted that Claude code created a new language that was typesafe and 50% more efficient for LLM coding and 20% faster for a human to review without any details about the language, would you not look it up? No knock on you directly, just an observation about the attitude in our culture. If this is true a child was tortured, if it's false someone is lying and needs to be outed (with facts) so they are not trusted. Neither one is good but is no one looking into it?

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> Did you investigate it? Nope. Rejecting a source doesn’t mean I am obligated to investigate it. As I said, whether this is true or not doesn’t seem particularly politically relevant. It would be interesting to know. But purely for curiosity, not because I think it will have practical effects.

gibbitz 8mo ago

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-toddler-torture-idf-israel-detention-b2947167.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-to... There are details here including quotations from an unnamed doctor. If feel you can't trust the media credentials of the Independent, you could contact them for the identity of the unnamed doctor (who they are likely protecting based on the nature of the conflict) and ask them directly.

dang 8mo ago
The doctor is named in the article now, perhaps as part of a later edit. Since people are questioning the objectivity of the other domain, we'll use this link you found for the merged thread. I'll put the original link in the top text.
- SilverElfin 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Hikikomori 8mo ago
    And we should only trust Israel that never lies?
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Naming the doctor adds nothing. It’s a doctor from Gaza with an Islamic name, and presumably at a hospital in an area controlled by Hamas All of this requires substantiation. Without it, a named medical professional rendering a medical opinion is credible. > how can such claims accepted without more scrutiny? What does "accepted" mean in this context? I'm forming a personal opinion. Based on the preponderance of evidence–evidence you'll see, in this very thread, I was earlier sceptical of–it looks like serious people are putting their names to the opinion that this toddler was tortured.
    - SilverElfin 8mo ago
      > Without it, a named medical professional rendering a medical opinion is credible. That’s your opinion. I disagree. It’s not credible, because being a “professional” does not mean you are capable of ignoring your own biases, especially when they run deep as they do in this particular conflict. I’ll also point out that the medical opinion you’re referring to lacks any actual details. For example - if the injuries are consistent with a cigarette burn, what specifically makes it “consistent” and how does this medical professional differentiate this possibility from all the other ones? Why is anything substantial conveniently omitted from all these stories, which instead all use the vague phrasing of “consistent with”? Why are there no details on this doctor, where they practice, or their credentials anywhere?