So nations are either a grouping of people within the entire world to you, or every person within a specific geographic region.
So your earlier claims that the United States was an Individualist Nation...you're suggesting that EVERY American holds individualistic values and principles in regards to their lives and their government or are you retracting your defining of America as an Individualistic Nation?
Yes, I shouldn't have said that America was an individualistic nation. I was making an argument in refutation of your attempts to claim we were a Christian nation due to "Christianity being the baseline common bond" by showing that the foundational bond of American Culture isn't Christianity, but individualism. That alone doesn't make us a Individualistic nation, though. We are an almost entirely Individualistic Nation, though. I failed to put in that qualifier before.
As above. Individualism isn't limited to just America, and I believe it would be impossible to say that every person in the country subscribes to the notion of individualist philosophy in regards to life and governance, so do you retract your previous designation of the America nation based on your own definition?
As I noted above, I made a mistake to call America an Individualistic nation. It actually contradicted my initial posts in this thread, where I said the country was to expansive and diverse to have a single culture.
except for Republican GOVERNMENT is not the same as a shared belief that Republican form of Government is the best and proper form of government. One can live within America and despise the notion of a Republican government, be against the form of government, refrain from activity in such a form of government, work to overturn such a government foundation, and reject the notion that it is the kind of government we should have. We would be a Republican STATE, because some individual not liking it doesn't change what the government is, but by your own definition we could not be a Republican Nation because not everyone in the nation subscribes to that belief system and its not exclusive to our geographical location.
Ah, but if one lives in a communist state and believes in democracy, it doesn't negate the fact that while they are living in that state, they
are engaging in communism.
This happens routinely though. Are you suggesting we do not group people together even such a isolated incident as you're talking about unless everyone in it? If I'm inviting a family over and I ask "Are you family hot dog eaters" and 7 of the 9 members of their family eat hot dogs it would not be uncommon for them to say "yes, we are" because in general they are. When I've described my group of friends from back home before I've described us as a "laid back group" despite the fact we have a few guys in the group that are relatively high strung and usually a bit hyper, but for the most part we're laid back and thus the atmosphere produced is as such. As I've said before, this is a difference of what one considers required to make a generalized declaration about a group of people. You require 100% participation, I do not. Yours isn't any more correct or right just because its what you do. I'm not saying yours is invalid, I'm saying yours isn't any more valid then mine. For you, a grouping must be 100% pure for it to be called something. For me, if a super majority of the group fulfills the role then the group as a whole can be considered that role when speaking of it as a group and not as individuals.
The fact that it happens routinely does not make it accurate. On one hand, you are trying to avoid colloquial misuse of a term (nation to mean political state), but on the other hand, you are defending colloquial misuse of a term.
It's the fallacy of composition. Just because something is true of some or many of the parts, does nto mean it is true of the whole. If we are discussing a group, the only terms that can be used to
accurately describe that group are terms that are true for all individuals in that group.
The degree of the majority doesn't matter when it comes to accuracy. If I have a group 19 white people, and one black person and I say "this is a group of white people", I'm
always wrong.
That statement will
never be accurate because it is
not a group of white people. It's a group that is
mostly white people, sure, but it isn't a group of white people.