And that is exactly how I feel about you. You refuse to address the central issue which I have clearly identified, (Natural Law rights) preferring to instead throw out this word cloud of irrelevant points that do not speak to foundational principles involved. You have made no attempt to address the "Natural Law" foundation of the Declaration, preferring instead to simply say "Because they did it this way, this is the only valid way to do it." (appeal to common practice fallacy.)
When I point out that the document itself explains that the listing of "grievances" was simply a courtesy, (...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind...) and not a necessity, you patently ignore that point, and continue on as if you weren't shown to be wrong by the clear text of the document. You then go on to say the founders agree with you, which is nothing more than an unsupported assertion, and you become incensed when I repeat your own claim back at you.
It is clear that you simply want to believe what you want to believe, and you find it annoying when people present facts that contradict your preferred world view.
I was mistaken in my assessment of you. I took you for something other than a knee jerk thinker who follows the herd. I thought you had the capability of being objective and independent, regardless of what is popular.
It has become apparent to me that reassessing your assumptions is simply too tedious of a task with which to bother you. I now wish I hadn't wasted my time.
I shall now proceed to look for someone who wishes to have an actual debate rather than participate in an echo chamber.
Look DL, the secession thing is not codified, it is a matter of opinion. I couldn’t care less if you agree with me that the South was not justified in seceding. But I backed my assertion that the Founders would disagree with your open-ended right to secede for any reason at any time. YOU have ignored the documented support I provided.
Couldn’t care less.
Bye.
DiogenesLamp often makes clear he has no respect for Founders Original Intent, which by definition makes DL something other than an American conservative.
Here he claims that his own interpretations of "Natural Law" must trump Founders' Original Intent wherever some conflict appears evident to DiogenesLamp.
So, let remind everyone of what should be obvious: a really clear and simple definition of American conservative can be summarized in two words: Constitution and Bible, not necessarily in that order but as originally intended by their Authors.
To the degree we may find ourselves, ah, "uncomfortable" with those documents, that is now much less than truly conservative, by American standards, we are.
Yes, I suppose DiogenesLamp & others may think they are making the anti-Federalist arguments against the Founders, but regardless they are not conservatives in our sense of that word.