Uninterested in the argument itself bud, happy to discuss the awful methods used in their arguments though. I literally checked the wiki page to even know what holodomor was, that’s how little I know and I’m not interested enough to debate with people that seem to argue with spittle flying from their mouths.
The first sentence is “While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute.” Wikipedia is hardly a rock solid source of course, but obviously there is some debate, so it really doesn’t seem like a black and white argument as stated. But as I said, I’m really not interested in debating that. I’m literally just pointing out the toxic arguments that happen here so unbelievably frequently.
Advising someone that they should refrain from debating full stop is just cunty behaviour, however right or wrong the person they’re attacking was. Attack the argument, not the person.
I’m very happy to be wildly wrong in your eyes mate, it makes no difference at all to me and people’s perceptions are their own to have. Reddit has some right wing subs obviously, it’s a platform with hundreds of millions of users and allows for easy engagement. People of all sorts will use it but show me someone claiming its heavily right wing and I’ll show you 10 more who believe it’s heavily left wing. In fact just ask Google if its right wing and most results will be along the lines of “why is reddit so left wing?”
I will say that I thoroughly appreciate the tone and structure of your arguments though (maybe with the exception of accusing me of crying, that does let it down somewhat). It’s exactly that structure or argument which I feel is missing all too often and at the very least when I read your comment it didn’t sound like you were bright red with anger. So thanks for that :) x
You said it yourself. You don’t know what you’re talking about here. And despite your continuing ad hominem’s and antagonism. I will take one last moment to point out that the use of the term is scholarly and meant to be taken in context. And not colloquially or in layman’s terms. It was no more man-made than the dust bowls were in the US. Or any of the other droughts and famines throughout the rest of the world in the exact same times. Saying they were man-made is like claiming that all global warming is man-made. It’s not completely. But man is making it worse. But we are also in a natural global warming trend. Context is important. Eldritch is 100% of correct in this instance. They’ve correctly stated multiple times the human activity made it worse. Which is what the scholarly consensus is. Their only major mistake was engaging those who were disingenuous, smarmy, and or bad faith. Same mistake I made
Also, it’s not what I think. But thank you for telegraphing your bad faith. The people who wrote the software stack. Literally have stated many places many times stated the reason directly.
I’ll side any day with someone passionately espousing the truth, over someone who calmly lies
Absolutely mate, I don’t know shit about it at all and really am not interested, I feel like I made that pretty clear. But anyone claiming something is 100% fact in a debate without having actual proof is arguing in bad faith, because they’re literally engaged in a debate, if it’s 100% fact there is no debate, it would have been proven and anything else becomes conspiracy. The fact that Wikipedia actually says man made means there is some debate.
They might be bang right, but not acknowledging any amount of doubt when it clearly exists (unless they are holding back the proof that they haven’t shared with the world for whatever reason) is bad discussion.
I’ll side any day with someone passionately espousing the truth, over someone who calmly lies
I’m totally with you there bud, there’s a big difference between passion and anger though. One might win people round to your side, the other will only ingratiate you to people already on your side.
You’d have to do alot of explaining if you claimed global warming wasn’t manmade too, at that point you’d just be arguing definitions… Whether that’s the definition of what constitutes global warming or the definition of when something becomes manmade.
![[META] Never change, lemmy.ml](https://i.imgur.com/1pxAyiq.jpg){kind=link}
Uninterested in the argument itself bud, happy to discuss the awful methods used in their arguments though. I literally checked the wiki page to even know what holodomor was, that’s how little I know and I’m not interested enough to debate with people that seem to argue with spittle flying from their mouths.
The first sentence is “While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute.” Wikipedia is hardly a rock solid source of course, but obviously there is some debate, so it really doesn’t seem like a black and white argument as stated. But as I said, I’m really not interested in debating that. I’m literally just pointing out the toxic arguments that happen here so unbelievably frequently.
Advising someone that they should refrain from debating full stop is just cunty behaviour, however right or wrong the person they’re attacking was. Attack the argument, not the person.
I’m very happy to be wildly wrong in your eyes mate, it makes no difference at all to me and people’s perceptions are their own to have. Reddit has some right wing subs obviously, it’s a platform with hundreds of millions of users and allows for easy engagement. People of all sorts will use it but show me someone claiming its heavily right wing and I’ll show you 10 more who believe it’s heavily left wing. In fact just ask Google if its right wing and most results will be along the lines of “why is reddit so left wing?”
I will say that I thoroughly appreciate the tone and structure of your arguments though (maybe with the exception of accusing me of crying, that does let it down somewhat). It’s exactly that structure or argument which I feel is missing all too often and at the very least when I read your comment it didn’t sound like you were bright red with anger. So thanks for that :) x
You said it yourself. You don’t know what you’re talking about here. And despite your continuing ad hominem’s and antagonism. I will take one last moment to point out that the use of the term is scholarly and meant to be taken in context. And not colloquially or in layman’s terms. It was no more man-made than the dust bowls were in the US. Or any of the other droughts and famines throughout the rest of the world in the exact same times. Saying they were man-made is like claiming that all global warming is man-made. It’s not completely. But man is making it worse. But we are also in a natural global warming trend. Context is important. Eldritch is 100% of correct in this instance. They’ve correctly stated multiple times the human activity made it worse. Which is what the scholarly consensus is. Their only major mistake was engaging those who were disingenuous, smarmy, and or bad faith. Same mistake I made
Also, it’s not what I think. But thank you for telegraphing your bad faith. The people who wrote the software stack. Literally have stated many places many times stated the reason directly.
I’ll side any day with someone passionately espousing the truth, over someone who calmly lies
END ENGAGEMENT
Absolutely mate, I don’t know shit about it at all and really am not interested, I feel like I made that pretty clear. But anyone claiming something is 100% fact in a debate without having actual proof is arguing in bad faith, because they’re literally engaged in a debate, if it’s 100% fact there is no debate, it would have been proven and anything else becomes conspiracy. The fact that Wikipedia actually says man made means there is some debate.
They might be bang right, but not acknowledging any amount of doubt when it clearly exists (unless they are holding back the proof that they haven’t shared with the world for whatever reason) is bad discussion.
I’m totally with you there bud, there’s a big difference between passion and anger though. One might win people round to your side, the other will only ingratiate you to people already on your side.
You’d have to do alot of explaining if you claimed global warming wasn’t manmade too, at that point you’d just be arguing definitions… Whether that’s the definition of what constitutes global warming or the definition of when something becomes manmade.
Good talk :) x