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?
Friend:
here is my last shot with you, bulleted for simplicity.
* Your argument, not mine, is the fallacy of the false disjunct - there is either "your own country" or "an immoral America" I reject your fallacy completely
* You are correct, I have not spent the time reviewing your trancendental argument for secession- my point being, I am an American and a patriot. Nothing CAN trancend that.
* It is not an ad hominem attack to point out that your position, your group IS being relegated to the looney bin, when it is.
* Your American Revolution argument - the peaceful vs. armed resistance has a definite proof, that is, America (armed resistance, throwing off the tyrant) vs. Canada (obtaining sovereignty through lack of interest on the part of Britain).
I assure you that you will not get what you want peacefully - you will be openly mocked (by people like me) and if you abandon the peaceful approach (because it will fail), you will be crushed utterly if you try the armed approach.
These are reasoned assessments, but you can take them as merely my opinion if you wish.
Your faux intellectualizing is also quite amusing, and strengthens my argument for mocking your movement. You fancy yourselves latter day patriots, when you are merely run-of-the-mill hate America secessionists. (again, this is not an ad-hominem comparison - look it up)
You CAN put your views to productive use through the political process. I wish you would because I might even join you in that. But the political process is the only reasonable option open to you - just like all americans.
But you think you are special. You're not. Your present path is folly, but far be it from me to try to convince you with words, you clearly reject any argument against your "movement".