Your argument wasn't a good faith argument. You asserted that 27 grievances was adequate justification. My argument is that grievances are completely irrelevant to the point. My further argument is "who gets to decide what grievances are "intolerable"?
Are not "grievances" in the eye of the beholder? Isn't it the sufferer who decides when they've had enough, not the tormenter?
King George III would have said we had no legitimate grievances.
I want to know how you decide which grievances are valid, and how many valid grievances it takes to reach the threshold necessary for independence.
You have put a number and a scale on grievances, so I'm just asking you to clarify both the number and the scale, so we can discuss this thing with objectivity.
My argument is that it is entirely up to the people who feel aggrieved, not the people whom they feel is oppressing them.
I am expressing what I understand to be the "Natural Law right of self determination."
Well, I think the Founders, as well as I, would disagree with you.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...To prove [Tyranny over these States], let Facts be submitted to a candid world. D of I.
According to you, this is a waste of time and effort. But not according to the Founders with whom I agree.