A court in the Russian city of St. Petersburg sentenced anti-war activist Olga Smirnova to six years in prison on August 30 on a charge of spreading fake news about the armed forces.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Likewise, the article on the Kazakh famine:
And
The last one I didn't see any mention of genocide though it might be buried deeper in the article, it's pretty long.
Here's a quote from the Irish Famine (same source: wikipedia)
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.
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?
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.
You debatebroed the debate bro with actual fact and logics, holy hell
(notice how they haven't responded after lol)
emojis
Ipso facto absurdeum you have only two options now.
Checkmate tankie