Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

I'm pretty sure secession is illegal according to the US constitution.

Nope. The Constitution says nothing about secession. The result of the Civil War made it de facto illegal, and Texas v. White clarified that. Though Texas v. White cites the "more perfect Union" phrase in the Constitution, the Constitution never explicitly allows or forbids secession.

* kaijyuu is slightly more educated today.

Tu quoque would be correct if I was personally accusing YOU of violating human rights (seeing as how it's basically an extension of an ad hominem). Your argument seems to be that the US can't let Texas leave because it would violate human rights. However, if Texas isn't really capable of being any worse than the US as is, then the US is in no moral position to prevent them from leaving and the argument is invalid. Not to mention, what constitutes "human rights" is, presently, completely up to the people who live in a given area. The overwhelming majority of countries in the UN don't really follow the UN Charter of Rights, and most countries have issues that others could claim constitute "human rights violations".

And YOUR argument is the US doesn't have the responsibility because... hypocrisy? Tu Quoque is more than just ad hominem, it's a non sequitor because it points out something irrelevant (hypocrisy) as an attempt to discredit an argument. If your health teacher is a smoker, it doesn't mean you can say him telling you not to smoke is invalid.

There are several ways you can attack my position.
- You can say the US is incapable of doing so due to incompetence or something. You'd have to prove that Texas/etc would do better (or at least the same) on their own, in that case, and I severely doubt you'd be able to do that.
- You can argue that it isn't the responsibility of the US to protect human rights in such a fashion. That would require "protecting rights" to not be one of the responsibilities of a government, though.
- You can argue that the rights I'm talking about aren't actually human rights (as you implied previously by pointing out that these things are subjective), even if just in your own view.

Which is it?

[Darvi]

Just saying, that coulda been interpreted that way.

So you're saying they engaged in group polarization? Less politely known as circle jerk? I am now imaginaing A giant Bush and the entire Texas legislature engaged in a massive circle-jerk, and it is not pretty.

Wait what how do you come to that conclusion?

[misko27]

Just saying, that coulda been interpreted that way.

So you're saying they engaged in group polarization? Less politely known as circle jerk? I am now imaginaing A giant Bush and the entire Texas legislature engaged in a massive circle-jerk, and it is not pretty.

Wait what how do you come to that conclusion?

Explaining how my mind took the conept that bush made Texas more bush-like, and that Texas made Bush more Texas-like, and following to what in my mind was the logical conclusion of a massive mutual masturbation exercise between a giant representation of a former US president and the whole legislative body of Texas is to complicated for me to deal with right now. besides, my cat is attempting to steal my chicken.
 
Regardless of  whether the Texans would be better off, the question of whether enough texans support it, the legal question of Texas's right to do so, whether the US would be within their rights to reject it, and if the Texans would be able to do anything about it is far more concrete. It is not going to happen, therefore the point is moot. I believe I am more likely to see a lunar base then Texas Seccesion. Hell, by that time it is a question of whther or not the democrats have recieved parity with the Texans.
 
So, how did Texas Seccesion come up?

[GreatJustice]

Tu quoque would be correct if I was personally accusing YOU of violating human rights (seeing as how it's basically an extension of an ad hominem). Your argument seems to be that the US can't let Texas leave because it would violate human rights. However, if Texas isn't really capable of being any worse than the US as is, then the US is in no moral position to prevent them from leaving and the argument is invalid. Not to mention, what constitutes "human rights" is, presently, completely up to the people who live in a given area. The overwhelming majority of countries in the UN don't really follow the UN Charter of Rights, and most countries have issues that others could claim constitute "human rights violations".

And YOUR argument is the US doesn't have the responsibility because... hypocrisy? Tu Quoque is more than just ad hominem, it's a non sequitor because it points out something irrelevant (hypocrisy) as an attempt to discredit an argument. If your health teacher is a smoker, it doesn't mean you can say him telling you not to smoke is invalid.

There are several ways you can attack my position.
- You can say the US is incapable of doing so due to incompetence or something. You'd have to prove that Texas/etc would do better (or at least the same) on their own, in that case, and I severely doubt you'd be able to do that.
- You can argue that it isn't the responsibility of the US to protect human rights in such a fashion. That would require "protecting rights" to not be one of the responsibilities of a government, though.
- You can argue that the rights I'm talking about aren't actually human rights (as you implied previously by pointing out that these things are subjective), even if just in your own view.

Which is it?

You generally believe in the concept of democracy, right? Then if the people of a given area decide to secede peacefully via referendum, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove why they can't exercise their democratic right in this way. You seem to be under the assumption that I need to prove a negative, that Texas DOESN'T violate human rights more than the US Federal govt does, to be able to argue that they cannot secede for that reason.

A torture program began under Bush (Texan).
The patriot act, began under Bush (Texan).
The DHS began under Bush (Texan).
Racial profiling pioneered in Texas (and Arizona and Florida and California).
Drone bombings began under Bush (Texan).
NDAA codifying the defacto indefinite detainment policy that began under Bush (Texan).

All of which where not only continued by Obama (Illinois), but most of which were expanded vastly under Obama (drone bombings and the NDAA especially). This isn't exactly a bulletproof argument.

Also, it looks a bit like a circular argument.

[Nadaka]

Drone Bombings expanded, granted.

NDAA expanded? no. That is wrong. It expands no preexisting power. It codifies what the government was already secretly doing and even added some (admittedly trivial) restrictions on its abuse.

The circular argument is yours.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-leaders-reject-secession-talk-wake-obamas-election-210744874--politics.html

well. The person who mentioned that Rick Perry kicked it off in texas? (that was me) My source was apparently referencing something from 2009. Rick Perry and Eric Erickson of RedState are calling for an end to the secession talk.

[GreatJustice]

NDAA expanded? no. That is wrong. It expands no preexisting power. It codifies what the government was already secretly doing and even added some (admittedly trivial) restrictions on its abuse.

So making immoral, unethical, and previously illegal activities legal doesn't constitute "expanding"? Officially allowing the president to assassinate US citizens without trial is a bit of an expansion.

The circular argument is yours.

Which one? I can't find one more circular than "Texas made Bush bad, but Bush made Texas bad"

[Reelya]

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html

PHOENIX (Reuters) - An Arizona woman, in despair at the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama, ran down her husband with the family car in suburban Phoenix on Saturday because he failed to vote in the election, police said on Monday.

Yeah, but his vote wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway because Arizona already voted for Romney ...

[USEC_OFFICER]

Bit late there. And it's the same website too.

[SealyStar]

I approve of Texas seceding. I think most people there would love their new independence, and the Democrats would be able to win every presidential election (and House majority) hands-down.

[mainiac]

You generally believe in the concept of democracy, right? Then if the people of a given area decide to secede peacefully via referendum, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove why they can't exercise their democratic right in this way.

The burden of proof sure as hell is not the way you say it is.  Democracy does not equal having a majority gets whatever the heck you want.  It is rule of laws, both written and unwritten.

A secession, even one endorsed by a majority of the seceding area, would be a flagrant violation of many agreements and obligations entered into in good faith.  For starters the substantial unionist minority would be grossly infringed upon, being deprived the right to maintain their citizenship in the status quo, the most fundamental right we have.  It's not incumbent on us to say why the majority can't do whatever they want, it's incumbent on you to say why the minority should be made to suffer so greatly.  Add onto that the massive breach of faith with the rest of the country which has faithfully honored the rights of the area that now wants out.

There would be nothing democratic about such an action.  Democracy empowers the citizens, not makes them victims to extralegal processes that overturn the civil order on the flimsiest of grounds.  If you want a democratic secession then it needs to be built on democratic grounds.  Show systematic disenfranchisement.  Show there is not fair recourse through the existing channels.  Show that the breach of good faith lies not with those seceding.  If you can not show these things then what you are proposing is not democracy, it's a power grab.

The classical liberals who you libertarians claim to love all wrote about how you don't go rewriting the social contract on a whim.  Even the downright anarchistic Rousseau, who said that people have the right to leave the state, said that they can not desert their obligations when you do so.  A liberal society is not a society where laws don't constrain our actions.  It's a society where bad laws don't constrain our actions.  So if you claim you should be able to ignore the law without first showing that the law is unjust then you are rejecting the fundamental principles of democratic government.

tl;rd Read any political philosophy from the past 400 years and get back to us, thx.

[misko27]

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html

PHOENIX (Reuters) - An Arizona woman, in despair at the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama, ran down her husband with the family car in suburban Phoenix on Saturday because he failed to vote in the election, police said on Monday.

Yeah, but his vote wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway because Arizona already voted for Romney ...

That is, slightly, extreme.  I mean what the ever-loving hell. Do not even have the decency to go to a swing-state. And no, it's not even Obama's fault, it's her husband's fault.
 
That Poor motherfucker. Well, he's alive, so I reccomend he go get married to a woman who will at least not sluaghter him for having a diference of opinion. God forbid he voted for Obama, he would have lost his testicles.

EDIT: Also, since no one is seriously considering seccesion but a few loony texans, 4chan and donald Trump, why does anyone care anyway??

[Leafsnail]

I thought Donald Trump wanted to march on Washington.

[Reelya]

Apparently they're up to ~36 states "wanting" to secede. Let's make that 50. And they can all form a NEW nation and have new elections

[misko27]

I thought Donald Trump wanted to march on Washington.

More like a general Revolution. He doesn't need to stand for something coherent though.
 
On that note: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/13/half-a-million-sign-petition-demanding-macys-drop-donald-trump/ more then a few petitioners on whitehouse.org/