"False disjunct fallacy"
then that makes two of us.......
I haven't given up on this country. It's going to take more than a "trancendental argument" to turn me away.
It's really not very trancendental at all. Independence is won, not apathetically achieved (except maybe for Canada), and I don't think people will grant you your wished for christian state just to shut you up - especially since you don't really make too much sense. You are soon (if not already) to be relegated to the looney bin - like the Black Nationalists - who also wanted their own country.
I'm loathe to give you advice in this matter, but you would have better success looking at the Amish model in PA. who are allowed to pursue a "distinct society" within the confines of the overall secular state.
Even you may see the futility of your quest when you attempt to come up with a Constitution for this shangri-la, which I am assuming will be in the not too distant future. I look forward to reading it, and the debate within your movement.
Regards-
then that makes two of us.......
Huh??? No, there are no two of us making the fallacy of the false disjunct. The false disjunct is the false assumption that we have either "a political platform" or "a secessionist agenda." When it is acutally both/and (or even a third alternative).
I haven't given up on this country. It's going to take more than a "trancendental argument" to turn me away.
You might want to become familiar with the transcendental argument and review why I introduced it before criticizing it.
especially since you don't really make too much sense. You are soon (if not already) to be relegated to the looney bin - like the Black Nationalists - who also wanted their own country.
Classic case of projection used in place of sound reason. You apparently are not familiar with the false disjunct fallacy or the transcendental argument so you try to draw attention away from sound reasoning by employing yet another fallacy: ad hominem attack.
If your position is reasonably then argue by using reason, not by engaging in fallacies and name calling. It seems sophomoric.
Even you may see the futility of your quest when you attempt to come up with a Constitution for this shangri-la, which I am assuming will be in the not too distant future. I look forward to reading it, and the debate within your movement.
Same arguments and assumptions used against the American Revolution. Answer me this, what was King George the third accused of doing (in the enumerated complaints outlined in the Declaration if Independence) that is worse than what our rogue tryants in black robes (Judges) are doing in America today?
Or, to put it another way, would you have supported the American Revolution as a reasonable response to the British Crown or was it a "looney" response? If you think it was reasonable, WHY was it more reasonable or justified than a peaceful secession movement today?