When asked to explain text in the Declaration of Independence that is contrary to your claims, you ran away and tried to deflect saying the text is “irrelevant” and “dogmatic” and “my head hurts”.
Smoke and mirrors. Deflection. Bad faith. A waste of time. Maybe medical problems.
Don’t call us, we’ll call you. The emergency room is available if you need it.
Bye.
This is factually incorrect. I quickly pointed out that the word "should" does not mean "Shall." I believe that simply pointing out the distinct difference in the meaning of those two words was a rebuttal sufficient for a cognitive man to recognize and move on, but seemingly my point was lost on you.
Since you didn't seem to grasp my elegant and simple rebuttal of your point, I will further elaborate on it.
The text you quoted says: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..."
which is perhaps good advice, but it is nothing more than advice. It was obviously not intended to be a requirement because they chose the word "should" rather than "shall."
Yes, people shouldn't change their governments lightly. They should consider the matter very carefully before making such a decision, but given "free will", imprudent decisions still fall within their rights.
People have a natural right to make bad decisions. It is a characteristic of freedom.
You continue to hang your entire argument on that phrase (and the other phrase about tyranny) and from my perspective your point doesn't hold water as I indicated in my further elaboration above.
This is what I mean. I took you as a man that was quick and cognitive, not one whom needed lengthy explanations to grasp what I regard as a clear and simple point.
How you can fixated on that "Should" sentence and completely ignore this other one:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
... Is what makes my head hurt. Only by deliberately interpreting that word "should" as "shall" can you make your statement into what you want it to be, and in the meantime you have to forcefully reject the preceding sentence which clearly says that the "consent of the governed" is the primary authority for any governance.
You demonstrate "cognitive dissonance." You take something which is clear, reject that, and take something which is obviously advice, and make it not only into a command, but the central thesis of the whole document.
If the Declaration could be condensed into the fewest words possible, that "Consent of the Governed" would likely be the central tenet expressed.
Now back to you and your "smoke and mirrors" ad hominem.