Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Mormak]

Their constitution disagrees.

As did their Armed forces.

No they weren't. They didn't have the legal right to be sovereign nor should they have the right to be sovereign over a trivial issue like states rights or slavery.

According to them, they did.

And i view that as sufficient.

And did you just claim the very reason for the American Revolution to be trivial? How dare they demand the colonists pay taxes!

[Mormak]

That sounds like a fascinating opinion friend.

I disagree

Unfortunately for you, it isn't a matter of opinion.

Eh...When it comes to the legitimacy of a state?

Yes it is, Completely so.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I would have to agree with the others, they weren't sovereign, no more then the whiskey rebellion was sovereign. In order to claim sovereignty completely you sort of have to... win first? Much like the situation with America and England.

According to what article of War or Establishment of governance?

John Locke said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed

The Chinese Used the Mandate of Heaven.

Rational legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy.

I could cite many more forms of "legitimacy to rule or of the state" but the point being is, there isn't an established method of being a recognized Nation anymore then there is a Notion of Theological Absolute Monarchy being the best system of governance, There are many methods, theories and beliefs when it comes to this subject.

Actually, if you're talking about secession, there's one legitimate way to be recognized: Win the war, or at least look like you're close enough to winning it in order for other nations to start backing you without fearing that they're betting on the losing horse. The Confederacy accomplished neither.

[Pandeeria]

No they weren't. They didn't have the legal right to be sovereign nor should they have the right to be sovereign over a trivial issue like states rights or slavery.

According to them, they did.

And i view that as sufficient.

And did you just claim the very reason for the American Revolution to be trivial? How dare they demand the colonists pay taxes!

No, and don't make this thread about if the American Revolution was justified.

They illegally broke away for a shit reason. Their secession wasn't justified and was stupid.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No they weren't. They didn't have the legal right to be sovereign nor should they have the right to be sovereign over a trivial issue like states rights or slavery.

According to them, they did.

And i view that as sufficient.

And did you just claim the very reason for the American Revolution to be trivial? How dare they demand the colonists pay taxes!

That wasn't a matter of taxation so much as it was taxation without representation.

[Dyakovo]

No they weren't. They didn't have the legal right to be sovereign nor should they have the right to be sovereign over a trivial issue like states rights or slavery.

According to them, they did.

And i view that as sufficient.

And did you just claim the very reason for the American Revolution to be trivial? How dare they demand the colonists pay taxes!

The American Revolution wasn't about taxes.

[Mormak]

According to what article of War or Establishment of governance?

John Locke said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed

The Chinese Used the Mandate of Heaven.

Rational legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy.

I could cite many more forms of "legitimacy to rule or of the state" but the point being is, there isn't an established method of being a recognized Nation anymore then there is a Notion of Theological Absolute Monarchy being the best system of governance, There are many methods, theories and beliefs when it comes to this subject.

Actually, if you're talking about secession, there's one legitimate way to be recognized: Win the war, or at least look like you're close enough to winning it in order for other nations to start backing you without fearing that they're betting on the losing horse. The Confederacy accomplished neither.

Doesn't really change the matter as being completely subjective to individual perspective.

Your own basis for the success of a secession or legitimacy of state is just that, opinion.

Same as mine.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Actually, if you're talking about secession, there's one legitimate way to be recognized: Win the war, or at least look like you're close enough to winning it in order for other nations to start backing you without fearing that they're betting on the losing horse. The Confederacy accomplished neither.

Doesn't really change the matter as being completely subjective to individual perspective.

Your own basis for the success of a secession or legitimacy of state is just that, opinion.

Same as mine.

No, mine is fact-based, as in "Were they able to accomplish it?" If not, then they aren't a state. If so, then they are.

[Mormak]

According to them, they did.

And i view that as sufficient.

And did you just claim the very reason for the American Revolution to be trivial? How dare they demand the colonists pay taxes!

The American Revolution wasn't about taxes.

<_< It was very much so about taxes.

"taxation with out representation" if i recall the saying.

Never mind that the crown revoked all import taxes for sugar, wool, cotton and what have you and only kept it on Tea leading up to the revolution but...well Tax i guess would be more accurate.

[Mormak]

Doesn't really change the matter as being completely subjective to individual perspective.

Your own basis for the success of a secession or legitimacy of state is just that, opinion.

Same as mine.

No, mine is fact-based, as in "Were they able to accomplish it?" If not, then they aren't a state. If so, then they are.

But that is your own basis, therefore your own perspective, therefore your own opinion.

There is no legitimacy of categorization for objective historical statehood.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, mine is fact-based, as in "Were they able to accomplish it?" If not, then they aren't a state. If so, then they are.

But that is your own basis, therefore your own perspective, therefore your own opinion.

There is no legitimacy of categorization for objective historical statehood.

Continue down that path, and you'll find yourself stuck in solipsism.

[Mormak]

But that is your own basis, therefore your own perspective, therefore your own opinion.

There is no legitimacy of categorization for objective historical statehood.

Continue down that path, and you'll find yourself stuck in solipsism.

There are less horrid philosophies out there...

[Pandeeria]

But that is your own basis, therefore your own perspective, therefore your own opinion.

There is no legitimacy of categorization for objective historical statehood.

Continue down that path, and you'll find yourself stuck in solipsism.

Whenever my friend has an argument or a debate about anything, the only way he can actually even "win" is by dragging Solipsism into everything.

Solipsism is awful for debating.

[Mormak]

Continue down that path, and you'll find yourself stuck in solipsism.

Whenever my friend has an argument or a debate about anything, the only way he can actually even "win" is by dragging Solipsism into everything.

Solipsism is awful for debating.

The concept is useful in debate in a singular regard, it establishes opinions as just that.

[Pandeeria]

Whenever my friend has an argument or a debate about anything, the only way he can actually even "win" is by dragging Solipsism into everything.

Solipsism is awful for debating.

The concept is useful in debate in a singular regard, it establishes opinions as just that.

At it's very core we do know nothing. You cannot actually prove to yourself that your current reality is real.

However in debates and general, I assume that Solipsism is false as if it's true there's nothing you really can do then. Everything is void, null, invalid, etc.

[Dyakovo]

Unfortunately for you, it isn't a matter of opinion.

Eh...When it comes to the legitimacy of a state?

Yes it is, Completely so.

Not once the matter has been settled, which in the case of the CSA, it has been for 149 years.

[Dyakovo]

The American Revolution wasn't about taxes.

<_< It was very much so about taxes.

"taxation with out representation" if i recall the saying.

Never mind that the crown revoked all import taxes for sugar, wool, cotton and what have you and only kept it on Tea leading up to the revolution but...well Tax i guess would be more accurate.

It was about representation, not taxes.

[Mormak]

Eh...When it comes to the legitimacy of a state?

Yes it is, Completely so.

Not once the matter has been settled, which in the case of the CSA, it has been for 149 years.

That's a relatively good point, Why push the issue and your opinion if neither ultimately matter? Why argue the legitimacy of a dead state and its confederation? Even if i view it as legal and you do not, ultimately what does it matter?

But i do view the C.S.A as a legitimate confederation in so far as their own perspective and legal basis, You know the very questioning that prompted this. Was requested to cite their ability to legally secede, did so.

[The Southern-Republic]

The confederate flag is NOT racist.

[Britanno]

That's a difficult one. It's like the swastika, on its own it wouldn't be racist, but due to its historical symbolism, it can easily be associated with racist viewpoints and beliefs.

[Dyakovo]

Whenever my friend has an argument or a debate about anything, the only way he can actually even "win" is by dragging Solipsism into everything.

Solipsism is awful for debating.

The concept is useful in debate in a singular regard, it establishes opinions as just that.

Maybe if you're losing the debate and lack the intellectual honesty to admit the facts don't support your position.

[Rabbidskiya Republika]

No, the ideas of the Confederates are racist but not the flag.

Exactly. The flag it self is not racist. I am not a racist, but I own a confederate flag.

[Intaglio]

It can be used both ways from my personal observation

[Dyakovo]

The confederate flag is NOT racist.

It is the symbol of a (failed) racist state, so yes, it most certainly is.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The confederate flag is NOT racist.

Care to actually argue that point, or are you comfortable with the simple declarative statement?

Bonus points if you argue using points that haven't already been brought up and discarded time and again.