14 ms·

This is not an argument in good faith. Alabama has no precedence of self governance, and that precedence is not being actively threatened by the US government.

by zwkrt 7y ago

This is not an argument in good faith. Alabama has no precedence of self governance, and that precedence is not being actively threatened by the US government. The thought that HK protesters (or Alabamians) just want to “marry their cousins or something” is icing on the cake. Just because some people think it is so does not make it so.

souterrain 7y ago
Better examples might be Vermont or Texas.
- shadofx 7y ago
  Those aren't recent enough to be comparable. Better examples would be Puerto Rico or Guam.
sho 7y ago
Oh come on I was trying to illustrate a feeling, not make a watertight legal argument. If you want to talk about precedent - how about polygamy in Utah? There was a long precedent of that. Substitute that if you like. I was trying to convey a feeling.
- cageface 7y ago
  Utahns agreed to give up polygamy in order to join the Union. It's almost the opposite of the current situation in Hong Kong.
  - sounds 7y ago
    As a Mormon I still think this might be a reasonable case to use for the basis of comparison. (Alas I don't speak for any other Mormons, who will probably disagree with me.) User 'sho' wants to present Hong Kong's efforts to preserve their rights in a way that the USA would understand. When Utah wanted to become a state, they obviously would have liked to preserve their polygamy practice. It took a long time before things settled down and Utah became a state. In a sense, that's where Hong Kong is right now. "One country, two systems." They aren't a fully-integrated part of the country, though I don't want to delegitimize them by calling them a "territory," maybe the comparison isn't so bad. There's pressure from the mainland to conform. Just like there was lots of pressure put on Utah to conform. It seems like a decent comparison.
jerf 7y ago
"Alabama has no precedence of self governance," Yes, it does (assuming you mean precedent). Alabama was one of the initial members of the Confederacy, which it created/joined on March 13, 1861. Now, this might sound like I'm disagreeing, but I would say, consider the outcome of the next several years. It is true that the United States fought this out to the n'th degree, and self-governance lost. One relevant difference is that there is a fairly solid case that Alabama joined the United States of its own free will. (Whether they realized it was inherently a one-way trip, well, that's another discussion.) I'm not sure if I agree that Hong Kong was quite so free. But it was certainly legal.

by zwkrt 7y ago

souterrain 7y ago

Better examples might be Vermont or Texas.

shadofx 7y ago
Those aren't recent enough to be comparable. Better examples would be Puerto Rico or Guam.

sho 7y ago

Oh come on I was trying to illustrate a feeling, not make a watertight legal argument. If you want to talk about precedent - how about polygamy in Utah? There was a long precedent of that. Substitute that if you like. I was trying to convey a feeling.

cageface 7y ago
Utahns agreed to give up polygamy in order to join the Union. It's almost the opposite of the current situation in Hong Kong.
- sounds 7y ago
  As a Mormon I still think this might be a reasonable case to use for the basis of comparison. (Alas I don't speak for any other Mormons, who will probably disagree with me.) User 'sho' wants to present Hong Kong's efforts to preserve their rights in a way that the USA would understand. When Utah wanted to become a state, they obviously would have liked to preserve their polygamy practice. It took a long time before things settled down and Utah became a state. In a sense, that's where Hong Kong is right now. "One country, two systems." They aren't a fully-integrated part of the country, though I don't want to delegitimize them by calling them a "territory," maybe the comparison isn't so bad. There's pressure from the mainland to conform. Just like there was lots of pressure put on Utah to conform. It seems like a decent comparison.

jerf 7y ago

"Alabama has no precedence of self governance," Yes, it does (assuming you mean precedent). Alabama was one of the initial members of the Confederacy, which it created/joined on March 13, 1861. Now, this might sound like I'm disagreeing, but I would say, consider the outcome of the next several years. It is true that the United States fought this out to the n'th degree, and self-governance lost. One relevant difference is that there is a fairly solid case that Alabama joined the United States of its own free will. (Whether they realized it was inherently a one-way trip, well, that's another discussion.) I'm not sure if I agree that Hong Kong was quite so free. But it was certainly legal.