Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Dyakovo]

No.
The Confederate States had been long oppressed by the North, this was the final straw. I may not agree with you, but I will not oppress you, especially not through Tyranny By Majority. Racists designed it, but a rag is just that, a rag, it has no ability to whip a black man and yell, "Work, Nigger!"

Take any of these opinions.

(Note: I am not a Racist.)

How were the Southern states oppressed?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, unrecognized by law.

Not by their own which is the very subject that prompted this.

.-.

If it weren't for circular logic, you'd have no logic at all.

[Pandeeria]

Yes, unrecognized by law.

Not by their own which is the very subject that prompted this.

.-.

If you think you're swagalicious, but no one else thinks you're swagalicious, you're not swagalicious.

[Mormak]

Note my prior post at the "recognition" of sovereignty to when it comes to states. There is no absolute theory on it.

Doesn't matter. They were not sovereign. You just cannot declare yourself sovereign and then the rights and responsibilities of sovereignty will just instantly poof up.

A paper document made by an unrecognized state does not mean anything in any broader concept of law.

Unrecognized by you and the Federalists, but not unrecognized by Law.

No one else recognized them.

You can call yourself cool all you want, but if no one else thinks you're cool, you're not cool.[/quote]

When foreign recognition becomes an accepted prerequisite for being a state that may be a valid point.

Alright?

[Dyakovo]

No.
The Confederate States had been long oppressed by the North, this was the final straw. I may not agree with you, but I will not oppress you, especially not through Tyranny By Majority. Racists designed it, but a rag is just that, a rag, it has no ability to whip a black man and yell, "Work, Nigger!"

Take any of these opinions.

(Note: I am not a Racist.)

You're not racist, but you want to support a country that based a huge amount of it's economy off of slavery and racism?

..and which was founded to preserve racially based slavery.

[Norstal]

When foreign recognition becomes an accepted prerequisite for being a state that may be a valid point.

Alright?

It is one of the many prerequisite...

[Mormak]

Not by their own which is the very subject that prompted this.

.-.

If it weren't for circular logic, you'd have no logic at all.

Just as if people didn't ignore the very issue that prompted this divergence of topic, we would have nothing to discuss.

[Mormak]

When foreign recognition becomes an accepted prerequisite for being a state that may be a valid point.

Alright?

It is one of the many prerequisite...

Put forth by what body on the issue?

By what convention and regulation?

[Mormak]

Not by their own which is the very subject that prompted this.

.-.

If you think you're swagalicious, but no one else thinks you're swagalicious, you're not swagalicious.

This another "alright" moment.

[Pandeeria]

Doesn't matter. They were not sovereign. You just cannot declare yourself sovereign and then the rights and responsibilities of sovereignty will just instantly poof up.



Unrecognized by you and the Federalists, but not unrecognized by Law.

No one else recognized them.

You can call yourself cool all you want, but if no one else thinks you're cool, you're not cool.

When foreign recognition becomes an accepted prerequisite for being a state that may be a valid point.

Alright?[/quote]

No.

[Norstal]

It is one of the many prerequisite...

Put forth by what body on the issue?

By what convention and regulation?

By the convention of the English language? Of political science?

A state is a monopoly of force. If you don't got monopoly of force in a certain area, then you're not a state.

[Shaggai]

No one else recognized them.

You can call yourself cool all you want, but if no one else thinks you're cool, you're not cool.

When foreign recognition becomes an accepted prerequisite for being a state that may be a valid point.

Alright?

What's your opinion on the Kingdom of Talossa?

[Tekania]

Yes, unrecognized by law.

Not by their own which is the very subject that prompted this.

.-.

They is no valid law of their own. The entirety of the CSA is a legal nullity.

[Pandeeria]

If you think you're swagalicious, but no one else thinks you're swagalicious, you're not swagalicious.

This another "alright" moment.

You're thinking in circular logic.

See Mormak, you may think you're the most swagalicious thing in human history, because you are declaring you're self to be swagalicious, because you want to be swagailicous. Doesn't mean you're swagalicious.

Now replace "swagalicious" with sovereign or a independent and you'll see the problem with your statement.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If it weren't for circular logic, you'd have no logic at all.

Just as if people didn't ignore the very issue that prompted this divergence of topic, we would have nothing to discuss.

No, seriously.

You proclaim that their secession was legal, and that they were sovereign states.

What was this based on? They stated as much in a document.

Why was this document legitimate? It was a legal document.

What made it legal? It was agreed upon by the sovereign states of the Confederacy, and sovereign states have the right to make and to enforce laws.

What made them sovereign states? They stated as much in a document....

[Norstal]

Just as if people didn't ignore the very issue that prompted this divergence of topic, we would have nothing to discuss.

No, seriously.

You proclaim that their secession was legal, and that they were sovereign states.

What was this based on? They stated as much in a document.

Why was this document legitimate? It was a legal document.

What made it legal? It was agreed upon by the sovereign states of the Confederacy, and sovereign states have the right to make and to enforce laws.

What made them sovereign states? They stated as much in a document....

And then later...

Put forth by what body on the issue?

By what convention and regulation?

So apparently we should both ignore Union legislation about how it's illegal to secede and to accept it as well.

[Mormak]

Put forth by what body on the issue?

By what convention and regulation?

By the convention of the English language? Of political science?

A state is a monopoly of force. If you don't got monopoly of force in a certain area, then you're not a state.

A repeat of a prior post it is then.

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

By this very definition, The C.S.A was a Confederation of States, Because all member Nations of it followed the prerequisites set down by the notion.

But by other definitions of "legitimacy" of state the C.S.A would not be recognized, Theocratic state requirements wouldn't be applicable, Neither would it follow the Communist model of "legitimacy" via the successful election of a leader or completion of a revolution.

Hence why i find the subject overly amusing and nothing else, There is some much division when it comes to "legitimacy" of state that there is no absolute truth to it.

[Mormak]

No, seriously.

You proclaim that their secession was legal, and that they were sovereign states.

What was this based on? They stated as much in a document.

Why was this document legitimate? It was a legal document.

What made it legal? It was agreed upon by the sovereign states of the Confederacy, and sovereign states have the right to make and to enforce laws.

What made them sovereign states? They stated as much in a document....

And then later...

Put forth by what body on the issue?

By what convention and regulation?

So apparently we should both ignore Union legislation about how it's illegal to secede and to accept it as well.

Actually my point with that post was that there is no recognized absolute authority on what makes a state "legitimate" there isn't even a singular definition of it.

[Geilinor]

By the convention of the English language? Of political science?

A state is a monopoly of force. If you don't got monopoly of force in a certain area, then you're not a state.

Neither would it follow the Communist model of "legitimacy" via the successful election of a leader

Democracy is communist?

[Mormak]

Neither would it follow the Communist model of "legitimacy" via the successful election of a leader

Democracy is communist?

There have been communists appointed that way ironically enough

[Pandeeria]

And then later...



So apparently we should both ignore Union legislation about how it's illegal to secede and to accept it as well.

Actually my point with that post was that there is no recognized absolute authority on what makes a state "legitimate" there isn't even a singular definition of it.

You're assuming that the person who declares their self independent is the ultimate authority.
...

Ok let's do a little exercise.

I am a blue elephant, therefore I'm a blue elephant.

You may be shouting out "No, you're not a blue elephant!" And it's good you are.

Now replace "blue elephant" with "independent" or "sovereign."

This will exercise proves that your opinion is wrong.

[Geilinor]

Actually my point with that post was that there is no recognized absolute authority on what makes a state "legitimate" there isn't even a singular definition of it.

You're assuming that the person who declares their self independent is the ultimate authority.
...

Ok let's do a little exercise.

I am a blue elephant, therefore I'm a blue elephant.

You may be shouting out "No, you're not a blue elephant!" And it's good you are.

Now replace "blue elephant" with "independent" or "sovereign."

This will exercise proves that your opinion is wrong.

Sovereign and independent how?

[Pandeeria]

You're assuming that the person who declares their self independent is the ultimate authority.
...

Ok let's do a little exercise.

I am a blue elephant, therefore I'm a blue elephant.

You may be shouting out "No, you're not a blue elephant!" And it's good you are.

Now replace "blue elephant" with "independent" or "sovereign."

This will exercise proves that your opinion is wrong.

Sovereign and independent how?

In the geo-political context of being a sovereign nation.

[Geilinor]

Sovereign and independent how?

In the geo-political context of being a sovereign nation.

What if no country recognizes your sovereignty and you're violating the constitution of the country that you're trying to leave?

[Dyakovo]

Yes, unrecognized by law.

Not by their own which is the very subject that prompted this.

.-.

Their law had no validity.