By which you mean, "correct, even though you don't like it." The Bill of Rights is, in legal philosophy terms, "negative" in that it tells the government what it can't do. It negates government powers. It doesn't mean bad.
You're the one who described negotiation as "a contact sport" and that "The purpose of negotiation is to pursuade (sic) others to listen to your arguments, consider them and then to decide to help you achieve your goals." In what way is holding a gun to someone's head the make them listen, consider and agree excluded?
What's your definition of 'oppression'?
Slavery as practiced by the south certainly qualifies. But I notice you didn't answer the questions: Did the southern slaves have a right to rebellion? Did the slave owners have a right to suppress their rebellion?
Is it your contention that people should never take matters into their own hands?
No, I'm saying that you shouldn't rush into doing something drastic, irreversible and quite possibly stupid.
Where did I mention war?
Post #768, "I so look forward to meeting you on the battlefield. It'll be just like old times: the south fighting for freedom and independence and the North attempting to 'preserve the union' at gunpoint." I can find more if you want. It's a pretty constant theme with you. But if you're now denying that you mean war, does that mean that rebellion is off the table?
Lets see if this generation of Yankees is as adept at running North as was the one of 150 years ago.
Thanks for your that extremely insightful explanation! I don't what us dumb Southrons would do without you geniuses from the north. /sarc
You're the one who described negotiation as "a contact sport"
I guess you went to the school of literal thinking. Oh well....
In what way is holding a gun to someone's head the make them listen, consider and agree excluded?
Once again, where did this 'gun' come from? You're just making up crap.
Slavery as practiced by the south certainly qualifies.
Is slavery the only thing that qualifies as 'oppression', in your opinion?
Did the southern slaves have a right to rebellion? Did the slave owners have a right to suppress their rebellion?
Yes and yes. If the slaves had rebelled, do you believe that the suppressors had the moral obligation to kill all the rebels, steal all their property, burn their homes and rape their women?
No, I'm saying that you shouldn't rush into doing something drastic, irreversible and quite possibly stupid.
As opposed to doing nothing which could be equally as stupid. You're like the frog in the kettle. You swim around in ever warming water under the illusion that somebody will eventually put out the fire.
Post #768, "I so look forward to meeting you on the battlefield. It'll be just like old times: the south fighting for freedom and independence and the North attempting to 'preserve the union' at gunpoint." I can find more if you want. It's a pretty constant theme with you.
You and ns must be joined at the hip. You both do love to take things out of context.
But if you're now denying that you mean war, does that mean that rebellion is off the table?
Unlike you, I don't live under the illusion that the universe is static. Everything is a possibility.