The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should've clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.

I'll note that your own source says in the introduction:

While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute

Likewise, the article on the Kazakh famine:

Some historians describe the famine as legally recognizable as a genocide perpetrated by the Soviet state, under the definition outlined by the United Nations; however, some argue otherwise.

And

The de-Cossackization is sometimes described as a genocide of the Cossacks, although this view is disputed, with some historians asserting that this label is an exaggeration.

The last one I didn't see any mention of genocide though it might be buried deeper in the article, it's pretty long.

[–] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should’ve clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.

I’ll note that your own source says in the very first line:

While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute

Here's a quote from the Irish Famine (same source: wikipedia)

Virtually all historians reject the claim that the British government's response to the famine constituted a genocide, their position is partially based on the fact that with regard to famine related deaths, there was a lack of intent to commit genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Genocide_question

So you have two options:

You either accept both as a genocide
Or you basically pick-and-choose based on whichever country was responsible for the genocide.

My guess is that you'll take the second option.

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or I could... not base my views on history entirely off of Wikipedia articles?

[–] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or I could… not base my views on history entirely off of Wikipedia articles?

So... first you believe Wikipedia, now you don't, based on whichever articles suit your views?

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think you understand how this works. You cited Wikipedia asking me to accept it as a source. That means that you accept it as a source, and I may or may not accept it as a source. Given that Wikipedia says that your claims of genocide are disputed, you have to accept that. I don't have to accept Wikipedia as authoritative, because I never claimed it was, I'm just saying that if you accept it, then you have to accept that all your claims are disputed. That's just how citing sources works.

[–] CamaradeBoina@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You debatebroed the debate bro with actual fact and logics, holy hell

(notice how they haven't responded after lol)

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

:::spoiler emojis

debatebro-r mission-accomplished-1 mission-accomplished-2 debatebro-l

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago

Ipso facto absurdeum you have only two options now.

Checkmate tankie smuglord