It depends on the circumstances, obviously. There are times and situations where either is an appropriate response, and there are times and situations where either (or neither) is not.
Harkius
Alright. You see, I received the impression you believed it as a general mandate, which worried me.
Harkius, you made the statement that those who seceed are wrong in doing so because they should be revolting, did you not? If so, then I believe that statement to be ludicrous both on a practical and theoretical level. First, please confirm that this is your position, and then I'll present my argument.
I personally loved it. A noir suspense story taking place in a High School setting, something you might think would not be able to hold itself up, but is so cleverly done and so intense it's brilliant, and is able to acknowledge its gimmick without intruding into the comedy realm.
Secession (n.)
Harkius - The process whereby one significantly sized portion of one populace segregates itself politically from the remainder of the populace from which it originated, resulting in two countries where one was before.
Highroller - The process whereby one small or large group of people leaves one political locale for another due to personal reasons.
See the confusion?
Yes, I've been arguing the exact same definition. The problem is not a lexical error, it's that you're ignoring what I posted about the different solutions secession and revolution create.
Ok, so the continuity refers to them being right next to each other. Why "right next to each other" wasn't used I don't know, but my question still holds, what's your point?
Therein would lie the difference between us. Since this thread is about the morality of secession, I think that morality of what, exactly, country B is doing to country A is very important.
Harkius
I'm not saying the morality isn't important. However, I believe upon their declaration of secession, Country B no longer feels obligated to Country A. After all, if they felt economic and political obligation, they wouldn't be seceeding in the first place. So to say Country B is wrong to seceed because Country A will go through hardships is rather foolish, especially if Country B has a justified reason to seceed.
Moreover, you believe a group of the populace removing themselves from the populace will create more turmoil than an overthrow of government. You do realize that overthrowing a government doesn't involve double-clicking on the White House, then moving down the drop down box to the option of: "Change Government", yes? You do realize it usually involves civil unrest, yes?
To answer the last question directed at me by Highroller:
I am saying that secession by the colonies and secession by the south are vastly different animals. Why? Geographic continuity. This is an incredibly important point, and one that is far too often overlooked. It will be an ongoing problem in the Middle East, as well, as neither Israel nor the nascent proto-state of Palestine are going to want to give up rights to rivers or oceans. Geography, even in this day and age, is an incredibly important concept.
This is why the restaurant example was important in the context in which I presented it.
Harkius
The restaurant example brings in the issue of the practicality of an actual situation of secession, which isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not it is moral to seceed versus overthrow. I think the clear problem is that you think overthrow is mandatory. It isn't, and moreover, it would not be moral or successful.
There are two issues to the seceed versus overthrow concept you're not acknowledging. One is the issue of majority versus minority in terms of the populace. I don't believe that a revolution without the support of the majority of the population would or should succeed. I think it can be safe to say that, barring outside interference, movements involving a minority are and should be more likely to move toward secession, as they wish to move themselves to a part of a new populace.
The other is that Locke states that revolution is justified in the instance of a government that infringes on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What if there is discontent among a minority not resulting from the above situation? Does this necessarily mean revolution? I do not think so. Your narrow outlook contains an almost Lenin-like infatuation with revolution that frankly is not needed when secession is an option.
Now, when we talk about practicality, that brings in other issues into the fray. First off, I'd like to clarify what you mean by "geographic continuity". I'm assuming that's a political term and not just, "They're right next to each other," but in the case of the latter, what of it? Your grievance seems to be that when Country B splits off from Country A that Country B might make things economically difficult for Country A. I fail to see why this is Country B's concern.
Quote from Denver"D »
Never take me seriously.
Or, when you read my posts, check what I am saying against sarcasm to see if it then makes more sense.
Or, if sarcasm fails, try irony, or hyperbole.
Point being - fully half of the posts I make are not made in a serious tone.
Edit: Tan made a post to this extent some time ago.
You weren't being sarcastic. You were making a very stupid argument that got shot down and now you're making a lame excuse to keep from losing face. Except, you already know that, because it's obvious.
It seems to me originally the complaints were that characters like Rose, Bernard, Hurley, and Libby were largely ignored. Then, when said characters get their own episodes, these episodes are regarded as pointless filler.
And shut up Mikey, Charlie is an awesome character even when he's Eko's lackey.
I still think FFVII's story is better, if simply for the Jenova aspect, and the lost identity angle of the story. I will admit though, it did get a bit angsty, almost as much as FFVIII.
I'd much rather a unified plot than a plot that is filled with a hundred thousand holes. Thus, I prefer FF II and FF III over FF VII.
Oh, right, the topic. Not-so-random question, particularly aimed at pro-secessioners: What makes secession different than treason?
Secession can be perceived as a form of treason, and rightfully so. It essentially is treason to all those who believe the seceeding body is rightfully part of the original body. However, those who are seceeding naturally do not believe themselves a part of the original body, and therefore to their vantage point they are not treacherous.
They had a rural, agricultural economy, and they had a vibrant, limited government.
It can't be said they had a poor economy when half of the western world wanted Southern cotton, nor can it be said their government would have been "ineffective" in peace time.
Their economy was inherently based on slave labor and the fickle cycles of agriculture. How long do you think they would have lasted?
Vibrant, limited government is true only if you remove the word "vibrant". Their government was relatively powerless, and to give it any more power would have defeated the purpose of the Civil War.
A part of the love I have had for Nintendo games will permanently die if they name their product wii.
Someone needs to start an online petition against this if it turns out to be true.
If you scroll down to the end of the article, it states that neither actress has caused disruptions. So I guess that clears that up.
Alright. You see, I received the impression you believed it as a general mandate, which worried me.
A public service announcement from Highroller to the MTG Salvation public.
I personally loved it. A noir suspense story taking place in a High School setting, something you might think would not be able to hold itself up, but is so cleverly done and so intense it's brilliant, and is able to acknowledge its gimmick without intruding into the comedy realm.
Yes, I've been arguing the exact same definition. The problem is not a lexical error, it's that you're ignoring what I posted about the different solutions secession and revolution create.
Ok, so the continuity refers to them being right next to each other. Why "right next to each other" wasn't used I don't know, but my question still holds, what's your point?
I'm not saying the morality isn't important. However, I believe upon their declaration of secession, Country B no longer feels obligated to Country A. After all, if they felt economic and political obligation, they wouldn't be seceeding in the first place. So to say Country B is wrong to seceed because Country A will go through hardships is rather foolish, especially if Country B has a justified reason to seceed.
Moreover, you believe a group of the populace removing themselves from the populace will create more turmoil than an overthrow of government. You do realize that overthrowing a government doesn't involve double-clicking on the White House, then moving down the drop down box to the option of: "Change Government", yes? You do realize it usually involves civil unrest, yes?
"Reckoning"
Check back soon to find out more about this all-new episode!
"Reckoning" huh? Sounds like something big's going down.
The restaurant example brings in the issue of the practicality of an actual situation of secession, which isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not it is moral to seceed versus overthrow. I think the clear problem is that you think overthrow is mandatory. It isn't, and moreover, it would not be moral or successful.
There are two issues to the seceed versus overthrow concept you're not acknowledging. One is the issue of majority versus minority in terms of the populace. I don't believe that a revolution without the support of the majority of the population would or should succeed. I think it can be safe to say that, barring outside interference, movements involving a minority are and should be more likely to move toward secession, as they wish to move themselves to a part of a new populace.
The other is that Locke states that revolution is justified in the instance of a government that infringes on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What if there is discontent among a minority not resulting from the above situation? Does this necessarily mean revolution? I do not think so. Your narrow outlook contains an almost Lenin-like infatuation with revolution that frankly is not needed when secession is an option.
Now, when we talk about practicality, that brings in other issues into the fray. First off, I'd like to clarify what you mean by "geographic continuity". I'm assuming that's a political term and not just, "They're right next to each other," but in the case of the latter, what of it? Your grievance seems to be that when Country B splits off from Country A that Country B might make things economically difficult for Country A. I fail to see why this is Country B's concern.
You weren't being sarcastic. You were making a very stupid argument that got shot down and now you're making a lame excuse to keep from losing face. Except, you already know that, because it's obvious.
And shut up Mikey, Charlie is an awesome character even when he's Eko's lackey.
I'd much rather a unified plot than a plot that is filled with a hundred thousand holes. Thus, I prefer FF II and FF III over FF VII.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/04/12/eye.fungus.ap/index.html
So do take note if you wear contacts.
Secession can be perceived as a form of treason, and rightfully so. It essentially is treason to all those who believe the seceeding body is rightfully part of the original body. However, those who are seceeding naturally do not believe themselves a part of the original body, and therefore to their vantage point they are not treacherous.
Their economy was inherently based on slave labor and the fickle cycles of agriculture. How long do you think they would have lasted?
Vibrant, limited government is true only if you remove the word "vibrant". Their government was relatively powerless, and to give it any more power would have defeated the purpose of the Civil War.