EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Sovereignty Support

< Return to subforum
Page: 123Most Recent
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jan 29 2015 7:36 AM
admin: It works like this: imagine a fictional African nation called Gwuainye. Traditionally there have been two groups in that nation: the Banana tribe and the Coconut tribe. For thousands of years the two tribes have been throwing spears at each other, but they were forced to stop when the British took over and colonized the place.
Then, after an independence movement in the 1950s, the British Empire grants Gwauinye its independence. They say to the two tribes right before they leave: "Tallyho good chaps! Coexist peacefully in this one nation, goodbye!"
What do you think will happen next?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 29 2015 10:05 AM
Dassault Papillon: Exactly. No one is saying we need to stay divided, but grouping together extremely different groups under one government is foolish no matter how you cut it.
admin
By admin | Jan 29 2015 11:33 AM
Dassault Papillon: Realistically, the tribes will go back to spear throwing, which is largely because the British empire tended to encourage such division. It's like how Ghandi didn't want Pakistan to be separate - I believe peace would be in the interests of both tribes, and that where there is war, people have not been trying hard enough for peace.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 29 2015 2:43 PM
admin: Idealistic, but the violence in Africa and Asian post colonies has already proved that dream doesn't easily come into fruition. It is best to have men of different social groups govern themselves. There are ways to cooperate beyond forcing laws on a group who does not want them.
admin
By admin | Jan 29 2015 2:59 PM
Blackflag: Not true there either, on two levels.
1. People want peace. 99% of human conflict is due to resource scarcity at its core. Such divisions create that artificially. Sudan is a good modern example of this.
2. There are dozens of examples of reconciliation in recent decades between historically aggressive factions too, just as there have been examples of new conflicts. This holds true for Africa and Asia.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 30 2015 10:21 AM
admin: People want peace. 99% of human conflict is due to resource scarcity at its core. Such divisions create that artificially.
That statistic is bullshit, but that is beside the point. I bet you more than 99% of the world wants peace. Just under their OWN system. People who are different should have the inalienable right of self government and individuality for their groups.

Sudan is a good modern example of this.
If it was just about resources, then Sudan would never have split. South Sudan became an entity because the tribal entities and blackfolk in the south did not want Arab governance, with strict sharia law. Resources were a migitating factor in one of the worlds most bloody struggles. Things didn't get extremely better when the south got self governance, but it sure as hell didn't get worst. Why force different peoples under the banner of one?

There are dozens of examples of reconciliation in recent decades between historically aggressive factions too, just as there have been examples of new conflicts. This holds true for Africa and Asia
... And 100's of examples of war and violence escalating over something as simple as self determination and liberty. All those reconciliation cases, which surprisingly you have failed to list, were never truly resolved. I can guarantee you all those sovereignty groups are still fighting for sovereignty. Even if their voices were silenced among the majority's politics.
admin
By admin | Jan 30 2015 10:28 AM
Blackflag: "I bet you more than 99% of the world wants peace. Just under their OWN system."
That's what democracy is all about - let all the groups have a say in what kind of society we make.To say, for example, that "I'll only be a peaceful member of society if the guy I like is elected president" is a damning mantra and not something 99% of the world believes in.

"Things didn't get extremely better when the south got self governance, but it sure as hell didn't get worst."
No, because immediately after the split the north asserted that they should get the oil fields, which has led to a bloody civil war far worse than when they were together. And yes, this civil war has nothing to do with ideology, it's just about resource control.

"All those reconciliation cases, which surprisingly you have failed to list, were never truly resolved."
Yes they were. Last time I checked the black sovereignty movement in the US failed, and the civil rights movement won.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 30 2015 3:40 PM
That's what democracy is all about - let all the groups have a say in what kind of society we make.To say, for example, that "I'll only be a peaceful member of society if the guy I like is elected president" is a damning mantra and not something 99% of the world believes in.

Large democracies, as you have once admitted, aren't always that ideal. If 51% of the population strongly supports something deeply important to them, and the other 49% doesn't, there is still going to be a loss no matter what the outcome. Democracy is great and all, as long as the majority is somewhat likeminded to the minority, If that minority is vastly different, then they should be given self sovereignty in a heartbeat.

No, because immediately after the split the north asserted that they should get the oil fields, which has led to a bloody civil war far worse than when they were together. And yes, this civil war has nothing to do with ideology, it's just about resource control.

This civil war you were talking about has been going on since the 60's, and South Sudan only achieved its independence in 2011. South Sudan has went from being a de-facto unrecognized state, autonomous district, civil military zone, and finally an independent country. The ideology behind the conflict was heavily related to the stark contrast of the black animist south, and the Sharia Arab dominated north. Do you think the two million combatants and one million civilians who died in this bloody conflict did it simply for oil, and not self determination? Keep telling yourself that.

The simple fact is, although the independent South Sudan got off to a rough start, there is less violence and more prosperity than before 2011.

Yes they were. Last time I checked the black sovereignty movement in the US failed, and the civil rights movement won.
To date, there is bitterness, racism, and hate in America. Yet African Americans were much happier to govern themselves in Sierra Leone and Liberia than remain slaves to the majority of white southerners. You do not actually think the black sovereignty movement had vast popular support to begin with though?

Why do we not just revive the whole god damn British Empire. I'm sure Indians, Americans, Asians, and Africans will work out their differences in the interest of peace and democracy! We'll all say chip chip cheerio, and be on our merry ways. Pssh... give me a break. Admit it. There will always be majorities and minorities, and they will always be subject to the will of those who are more numerous. Just because they are different this takes place.

What you advocate for is imperialism. You might not call it that, but that is what you are advocating. So many wars would of been avoided if we recognized the need for self determination and forcing groups to maintain self governance. You keep talking all this yap about how groups can get along alright in a democracy. So be it, but that does not mean self sovereignty isn't the best option. Unless you think it is a good idea to continue to let the non-muslim South Sudanese people live under a Sharia State to which they do not respect? If that is your wish, then I would say you hit your mark.
admin
By admin | Jan 30 2015 4:32 PM
Blackflag: "Large democracies, as you have once admitted, aren't always that ideal."
Not quite what I said. I said American democracy isn't ideal but gave some practical suggestions to improve it. The normal response to any tyranny of the majority is to fix the system, not go shoot each other. I believe many democracies around the world do not suffer from these problems, and they are not inherent to the nation being of any particular size.

"This civil war you were talking about has been going on since the 60's"
There has been sporadic clashes but not a single continuous war. It has always concerned control of wealth and the oil fields, not simplistic "I hate those guys because they're different from me". I'd be very happy to debate you on this.

"You do not actually think the black sovereignty movement had vast popular support to begin with though?"
Yes. It was bigger than the civil rights movement to begin with.

"Admit it. There will always be majorities and minorities, and they will always be subject to the will of those who are more numerous."
So do you think America should split into two nations - the Democrat USA and the Republican USA? Because that's what you're implying. However much your two parties are politically opposed, they work together to get stuff done. Most of the time. Isn't that better than if the congress were to erupt into a gun battle?

"Unless you think it is a good idea to continue to let the non-muslim South Sudanese people live under a Sharia State to which they do not respect?"
Empowerment to change the law is different from empowerment to kill each other.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 30 2015 5:06 PM
Isn't that better than if the congress were to erupt into a gun battle?
Empowerment to change the law is different from empowerment to kill each other.
Just so we are on the same page, I am arguing we are better off with more groups of people holding self sovereignty. I am not arguing that there should be violent uprisings to do so. Were you legitimately confused, or just scapegoating this rhetoric about killing each other? There are other ways to attain independence than shooting each other. Way off topic...

There has been sporadic clashes but not a single continuous war. It has always concerned control of wealth and the oil fields, not simplistic "I hate those guys because they're different from me". I'd be very happy to debate you on this.
There is a pattern of you missing the point in this discussion. Over a million people fought and bled during the civil war. Are you saying their motivating factor was oil, or did these poor ranchers have actual ideals they were fighting for? I do not care about the intentions of the leaders, but that of the people. No one sends people to war with the justification, "let's make lots of money." It certainly not a way to win a war at that.

You are also definitely wrong. The Sudanese Civil War was a prolonged conflict between the government and organizations dedicated to the independence of South Sudan since the 60's, and it killed about 3 million people in violence that lasted 30 years.. And yes, their advertised goal was independence. Their propaganda to the people wasn't a fat oil contract, because believe it or not, barely anyone who fought in the war had that foremost in their mind.

So do you think America should split into two nations - the Democrat USA and the Republican USA?
No, I never took an objectivist stance. Neither have you. I haven't disagreed with what you are saying. Only affirmed my notion that the world is better off if there was more self determination and self governance.

Empowerment to change the law is different from empowerment to kill each other.
Just so we are on the same page, I am arguing we are better off with more groups of people holding self sovereignty. I am not arguing that there should be violent uprisings to do so. Were you legitimately confused, or just scapegoating this rhetoric about killing each other? Way off topic...

There has been sporadic clashes but not a single continuous war. It has always concerned control of wealth and the oil fields, not simplistic "I hate those guys because they're different from me". I'd be very happy to debate you on this.
There is a pattern of you missing the point in this discussion. Over a million people fought and bled during the civil war. Are you saying their motivating factor was oil, or did these poor ranchers have actual ideals they were fighting for? I do not care about the intentions of the leaders, but that of the people. No one sends people to war with the justification, "let's make lots of money." It certainly not a way to win a war at that.

You are also definitely wrong. The Sudanese Civil War was a prolonged conflict between the government and organizations dedicated to the independence of South Sudan since the 60's, and it killed about 3 million people in violence that lasted 30 years.. And yes, their advertised goal was independence. Their propaganda to the people wasn't a fat oil contract, because believe it or not, barely anyone who fought in the war had that foremost in their mind.

So do you think America should split into two nations - the Democrat USA and the Republican USA?
No, and I never took an objectivist stance to begin with. Neither have you. I haven't disagreed with what you are saying. Only affirmed my notion that the world is better off if there was more self determination and self governance. It seems you are on about violent uprisings or something, and that is where I lost you.

However much your two parties are politically opposed, they work together to get stuff done. Most of the time.
*no hint of sarcasm* Never have you said something more false
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 30 2015 5:06 PM
Can you fix the quoting? That or add an option to edit posts.
admin
By admin | Jan 30 2015 6:19 PM
Blackflag: this is what happens when people don't use the BBcode correctly... it's not really a site bug.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 31 2015 3:55 AM
I want to extend that I am adamant about one thing, Violence in not one scenario I can think of was a justified tool in obtaining self governance.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jan 31 2015 4:46 AM
Some groups, especially of two opposing religions or ideologies, cannot both have their way in a nation. So instead of a mutual misery, why not let both groups have their own nation where they can each implement their own religion/ideology in their own nation? It seems like everyone would be happy in this case, and thus it seems to be the best solution to me.
Take Conservatism and Liberalism in the United States. Both groups cannot have their ideas be the national policy, as you cannot have both a capitalist and a socialist economy (just one example). So, at least one of the two groups is going to be unhappy with whatever arrangement is made as long as they share the same nation.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jan 31 2015 4:50 AM
Dassault Papillon: I don't like the idea of forcing Conservatism on everyone in the United States, as Liberals would be unhappy (even though I believe that Conservative policies are better overall, I still believe this). Likewise, I don't like the idea of forcing Liberalism on everyone in the United States, as Conservatives would be unhappy (and this should be the case even if you believe that Liberal policies are better).
There is no good fix as long as the two groups share one nation.
admin
By admin | Jan 31 2015 6:02 AM
Dassault Papillon: 1. Don't confuse liberalism (political policy) with socialism (economic policy)
2. So you would support splitting the USA into two? One right-wing and one left-wing state? Am I reading you correctly here?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jan 31 2015 6:14 AM
admin: 1. Liberalism includes socialistic economic policies.
2. America is a melting pot state, which means nothing can be done about it.
admin
By admin | Jan 31 2015 6:18 AM
Dassault Papillon: 1. Conservatism does too. If you disagree - want to have a debate about that? An example of a form of liberalism that is anti-socialist is libertarianism.
2. OK. So then... you'd prefer if liberals didn't live in your country, but you kind of accept it?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jan 31 2015 6:31 AM
admin: 1. Conservatism is Right-Wing, meaning that it cannot be socialistic. That's not to say that Capitalism is necessarily better.
2. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives have a greater or lesser right to reside in the United States, so removing either group from the U.S. would be unfair. This is because the United States is a Melting Pot State, and this is a good thing, as the world needs at least one. However, the Melting Pot system is not necessarily the best either.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jan 31 2015 7:07 AM
The United States would not break in two because it is binded by more things than conservative vs liberal. Strong heritage and national pride means people actually want to be apart of the United States. Though if America wasn't federalized my stance would quickly change.
Page: 123Most Recent