If you didnt care you wouldnt have given me your imaginary college history.
The treaty has been around for a while and the main thing they f!ght with the government about is the terms of the treaty and laws put into effect called, i think, the blacks laws. Thats why I said apparently/allegedly because if it was recognized certain areas of the united states would be under moorish rule or something like that.
Dont know where you saw me say the definitions differed or saying they have a completely different sets of laws. For somebody who studied both english and law you take a lot of sh*t out of context.
Dont know, you're good with google why dont you try and look up someone who's a Moor and see what they say instead of askin some n*gga on a forum who's opinion you just said you dont care about.
1. If ithe treaty is not recognized, it is irrelevant. Also, apperantly means that it is obvious. Allegedly means that it is questionable. That's why I asked was it or wasn't recognized.
2. You said that they had a different set of laws, so asked about the way their law defines those terms. If the definitions don't differ, then the terms don't have any bearing on the situation, therefore he is rambling.
3. I never said your opinion on the subject didn't matter. I said I didn't care if you believed me about my education. I take everyone's opinion into consideration when forming a thought. If you or anyone makes a point, I will listen.
4. And I did some research and they have two treaties, neither of which legally allows them a different set of laws. He was still wrong about the piracy,kidnapping, human trafficking etc. Which is the point I was making. The father was ranting and spouting random legal terms. Again, if someone can explain to me how I am wrong, I will admit that I'm wrong.