lexity
Honorary Master
Yes, this is the first one that pops up when I asked chatGPT.2011 South Sudanese independence referendum
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
Yes, this is the first one that pops up when I asked chatGPT.2011 South Sudanese independence referendum
Cray asked for examples of successful secessions(as opposed to successions) on the back of a referendum.I believe the English took exception to this succession, and a little debate, in the form of a war, took place? The French even got involved to support the dirty secessionists, iirc.
All lives lost were labeled as "non-complicating factors".
Yes, this is the first one that pops up when I asked chatGPT.
Ok.... here it is one more time....@NoStepOnSnek88
Do you want to have a crack at this True/False question?
You responded to the previous one.
Please repost the question, I'll try it why not.
![]()
"There was an internal UDF document, in which they said that the ultimate objective of the UDF was to liberate SAns from the voracious monster that is Capitalism but that this could not be disclosed to people because most SAns were pragmatic and it would limit the support that the UDF could gain."
The point was to see genuine , real world, examples of countries that have seceeded and to see how it worked out for them.@Cray it looks like there are at least a few successful independence movements that held a referendum.
So, what is the point of that question?
Was/is there a point to it?
You never know, it may have turned out worse for them had they not seceded.The point was to see genuine , real world, examples of countries that have seceeded and to see how it worked out for them.
South Sudan and Eritrea are not very enouraging examples of things might go....
Vigras, do you understand the concept of mutual consent?You're proposing removing current freedom of movement from the majority of a country's population without their consent. You can't seem to understand that people might not be too keen on that.
So much for your precious FoA.
Vigras, do you understand the concept of mutual consent?
It's a requirement for the right to Freedom of Association to be respected.
If one party wants to associate, his right is limited by the other parties right.
So consent has to come from both/all parties.
Does it make more sense?
Look at you now reverting to imagined alternate timelines. Did you also consider the alternate timeline where the Referendum Party drafts the Declaration of Independence in Word, but forgets to turn off Track Changes, so the founding document of the new nation publicly displays 147 unresolved comments, a plan for an isolated Libertarian movement at Robben Island called Lexistan and one passive-aggressive note from someone called ‘Brian’.You never know, it may have turned out worse for them had they not seceded.
They could have been wiped out entirely by now.
Ok.... here it is one more time....
True or False....?
You either know the answer or you don't but in either case, feel free to give you reasoning.
e.g. I really don't know but it's likely true with that degree of specificity (was Brian_G's answer).
Or: I suspect it's False because yada yada yada
Yes, because the South Sudan people woke up one day and for no particular reason decided they might just try to become a new country tomorrow and declared independence. Then suddenly the violence started... /sLook at you now reverting to imagined alternate timelines.
Slowly now....I understand mutual consent very well. It's you who sadly doesn't, which is why you'd run roughshod over citizens' rights in order to establish your mythical independent Cape.
You don't give a damn about mutual consent.
Yes, because the South Sudan people woke up one day and for no particular reason decided they might just try to become a new country tomorrow and declared independence. Then suddenly the violence started... /s
Have a look and you'll they were being systematically killed and bombed into oblivion, as a group of people.
Right - and by that same logic, the Western Cape is obviously one municipal billing error away from being ‘systematically bombed into oblivion’. /sYes, because the South Sudan people woke up one day and for no particular reason decided they might just try to become a new country tomorrow and declared independence. Then suddenly the violence started... /s
Have a look and you'll they were being systematically killed and bombed into oblivion, as a group of people.
The point stands, they had to make a decision to stand up for themselves, by seceding, or being eradicated from the face of the earth.So just like the Western Cape then...