Please let us know when you're willing to refocus on the example 'nation' which is the topic of this thread.
Last edited by Jerry; 07-07-10 at 01:25 PM.
Saying I'm not using it correctly isn't the same as showing how I'm not using it correctly. If you can't show it, I must assume that your claim is false. No need to keep declaring it.
Let me know when you are willing to put forth an argument as a rebuttal instead of making unsubstantiated claims in lieu of a rebuttal.
Last edited by Tucker Case; 07-07-10 at 01:32 PM.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
You do yourself no favors when you cite a definition and then try to distill out it's components. Doing so is, in fact, dishonest. Take the lead by using the definition as a whole as it applies to the example 'nation'.
Last edited by Jerry; 07-07-10 at 01:39 PM.
Now you're arguing that you can't have nations that are specific to a specific geographical area? Or that if anyone outside of the geographical area that's defined is shares the same common bond that it invalidates the notion of a nation?
So if there's anywhere else in the world where people believe in having a Republican form of law then you can't actually call America a Republican Nation because there's someone else outside of that border that follows it so they're just part of a larger nation. If anyone ANYWHERE else believes in individual freedom then you can't considered America a Nation of Individualists because peopel exist outside of that. If anyone happened to be from America but is no longer a citizen of the country while still holding the history and culture of the country as a formative portion of their life and something they still consider part of their history then it invalidates the notion of America as a Nation because people outside of the country can share in that nation and therefore invalidates calling it an American nation because its one that stretches the world.
Where are you getting this notion that somehow you can not speak about a specific population within a confined location when speaking about a Nation? Nothing says the "population" that is being defined MUST be the ENTIRE WORLD.
Indeed, once more you destroy your own argument by your own requirements that you set down in order to disprove other peoples arguments. If the existance of someone that shares that bond outside of the geographical area of the United States makes it impossible for the United States to be considered an "X" nation then there is, once again, little to no nations that can be defined as "American" as it is likely neigh impossible to find ANYTHING that you could use to define that nation that is not held by someone, somewhere, elsewhere in the world.
Last edited by Zyphlin; 07-07-10 at 01:40 PM.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
I'd say our state religion is actually materialism, and our national deity is mammon, if we want to be brutally honest.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.