No. sovereign rights have only those who accept the ethics themselves. Everybody else gets sovereignty only de facto and only if de facto the territorial sovereignty of the other communities is accepted.
Yet this is somehow part of why you support the Confederacy that started a war to preserve and protect slavery.
There are days when the problem is that one cannot follow his own posts, but this isn't an example of that. This is just an example of what it takes to push whatever it is you think you're selling.
Then again, as to that other:
Except that it is not a projection. You continue in this reply to argue about what some hypothetical person thinks, say, some "bizarre anglophilia". I would not care at all about such personal attributes, would use them neither for ad hominem nor for simple personal attacks, it would be essentially useless for me.
To
circle back↑ to the reason we would consider that other poster, is the idea that someone who isn't making certain arguments—
¡whoopsie!—just can't help but accidentally hit the stage marks. Of course, it is
not clear↑ that you understood; or, more appropriately, it's kind of clear you didn't.
And you keep on, in the same manner:
If an argument does not work because of problems which are ignored by the guy who proposes the argument, what's the problem? Point to these problems. No need for any ad hominem or so. That people tend to ignore problems is well-known, and it is even a reasonable strategy to handle a lot of problems with some idea in some particular order, an order which is mainly defined by the actual chances to solve them. If you care first about problem A, you will ignore the problems B and C. The alternative is to stop thinking about the idea at all. Once A is solved, you may start to care about B, ignoring C. Is this type of ignorance convenient for the guy who thinks about that idea? Of course. Any problem with this? No. Simply tell him that problem C is yet totally ignored, and in that actual situation, you have made a decisive argument.
Okay, look: You're so fucking afraid of the Mueller investigation and report that you've tried justifying the Confederacy along the way to hoping for a distraction, and, really, the thing about being smart enough to justify the Confederacy is that you simply aren't. Nobody has yet pulled it off, and some of who tried, unlike you, even had half a clue what they were on about.
So, like I said: It doesn't really matter who brings it. In all the Universe, maybe there is a logical argument for something, but here we have a something for which that argument has not yet been found, and rehashing it in pretentious ignorance just isn't going to help.
Seriously, this is your latest distraction from the thread topic.
Your discourse about theology using the scientific method is irrelevant.
Actually, the organization of informational elements according to a pretense of scientific method, but without regard to the validity of said elements is pretty much the manner in which your botchery can be called scientific.
The point of my remark was that your method based on ad hominem as the main argument is clearly not the scientific one.
If you find descriptions of your behavior insulting, perhaps the problem is your behavior: You purported to justify the Confederacy, and brought
nothing; then complained of personal attacks because, apparently, you wish to bring white supremacist platitudes about the Civil War but need everyone to pretend, what, that you're somehow being original, that nobody ever thought of that before? Think of it this way: If I ask whether you really do have trouble distinguishing between person and argument, it isn't just some random barb; your posts at
#512↑ and
#519↑ leave that to question. To wit: Yes, you are just the next
person who happens to be making a particular
argument. If we're discussing common behavior from one person to the next (#
505↑,
516↑), quite clearly we are focusing more on the behavior—
i.e., argument—than the individual. Similarly, if I make the point that you seem to be using
ad hominem wrongly, it's not just a hit; rather, the point of observably faulty assessments upon which you base your argument is relevant to the reliability of your assessments and argument.
The idiot-simple version: You did something stupid, and then complain that people note the stupidity.
Speaking of which—
War is a notion of international law and is possible only between states (if one forgets Orwellian "war against terror" and so on). In my libertarian ethical system, I prefer to use aggression for what is rejected. "War" combines aggression with legitimate self-defense, so it is not useful for ethical considerations.
So, if one accepts the libertarian ethics, one has to surrender to the wish of some part of the community to separate, and even without anything done by those who want to separate.
The states involved in the Civil War were not libertarian at all, and in this sense irrelevant. Except for the case of how to act toward communities which don't accept libertarian ethics. Here the answer given is clear: If they don't attack your territory, you have no right to attack their territory too, and it does not matter if what they do there is criminal according to your own ideas about justice.
—your articles of faith are what they are, but do not change the fact that blithe appeals to "[your] libertarian ethical system" depend on ignorance. Now, before you cry about
ad hominem, again, consider that you are overlooking, in your application of this latest
ad hoc whatnot, the effect of what it means in application; your argument only works according to a
lack of information affecting its meaning. So, yes,
ignorance is the word.
You insistently post offensive tropes, and apparently from ignorance; if you wish to bawl about the white supremacist tropes you post being called white supremacist, remember that if you find descriptions of your behavior insulting, perhaps the problem is your behavior. There are, of course, days when that line doesn't work, but when regurgitating debunked excrement you're not capable of explaining, the probem is your
behavior, that is, the
content of your
argument.
The winner has always been the innocent victim of aggression. At least in modern times.
Ordinarily, I use a line that runs,
this probably makes sense to you. However, given the history of your behavior and the content of your arguments, that might not be true.
No, the point is simply that separation can be done, if accepted by the former big state, in a peaceful way, without anybody being harmed. But if there are parts of the territory where people want to separate, the continuation of the big state is always violent oppression.
This isn't necessarily invested in ignorance, despite the fact of details you're not accounting for because you probably don't know, or wouldn't know how to account for. Rather, it gets filed under,
Any Excuse Will Do. More particularly: The missing information is what all gets cut off if the society accepts every arbitrary secession. The underlying principle creates, at best, an unstable checkerboard or patchwork effect as subgroups dissent and assert other paths. Antisocial ouroboros theses are, by definition, antisocial, and thereby no proper course for a society.
In the American context, if "the point is simply that the separation can be done" also requires, in addition to acceptance by the larger state, the termination of rights, contracts, and other conventions, associated with the larger. The separations are not so simple. Modern American secession would be a disaster; the Civil War would start when Texas announced its secession and Congress responded that's fine as long as they take Florida with them. Trust me, though, we
would build a border wall.
But your justification of the prior secession, by the Confederacy, is offered under circumstances that the Confederacy owes secession (even to re-join the Union) if that's what a local government wants, and thus would fall apart as soon as the slaves had their say. That is, the principle devours itself. (
See also #505: "Libertarian anarchism" is, by function, perpetual instability. One of the things that happens with anarchism is that any social contract must be established anew with each participant.)
So quit wasting your time, and everyone else's, with this petulant stupidity. And, please recognize, there's a point to which we get it, that someone from overseas doesn't necessarily understand how common and lowly his stroke of wannabe gutter genius really is, but there also comes a point at which he might insist so strongly we can only shrug and take his self-consuming antisociality at face value.
