As controversial as it is... Spanish Civil War

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ioana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty much, this notion that everyone capable of drawing breath and stringing a sentence together should have an equal say in government is ridiculous.
 
I think what he’s trying to say is sometimes the mob makes stupid and immoral decisions and it takes an authoritarian figure to check the impulses.

For example, the recent legalization of abortion in Ireland. It was legalized democratically, but it’s still wrong, whereas if a non democratic elected leader did not legalize abortion against the wishes of the majority they would be the ones in the right.
No it doesnt. You don’t get to “check the impulses”. I’m sure that if the USA was voting more and more Catholics into office and was about to amend the constitution by states convention to accept all Catholic doctrine and run the country on Catholic principals, but a strong communist leader stepped in and checked the impulses to make religion illegal you would sing a different tune no? It’s democracy. If the people want communist rule that’s what they should get.
 
Where have I endorsed this notion?

A lot of people do not get the vote. Minors, incarcerated convicts among others.

How do you determine who is not qualified or qualified to vote? What criteria do you employ?
 
but a strong communist leader stepped in and checked the impulses
False equivalency. Instituting catholic doctrine which is all intrinsically good is not the same as voting to legalize an intrinsic evil.
 
False equivalency. Instituting catholic doctrine which is all intrinsically good is not the same as voting to legalize an intrinsic evil.
Thank you your proving my point. You think it’s good so it’s okay for a despot to push your values. When a despot pushes what you don’t like it’s a bad thing. See the problem with dictators? Your happy when your views are on top, not so much when it’s the other guys.
 
If we’re to have any voting at all, it should be limited to property owners. Not just land, but any kind of real taxable property (businesses, land, etc. ) and even then only if they’ve paid a net gain in taxes into the treasury.

But I’d prefer voting be done away with almost entirely.
 
Last edited:
I think you just made the case for the hereditary monarchy. A parliamentary monarchy which does not solely rely on ambitious politicians for leadership, be it moral or secular.
 
I think what he’s trying to say is sometimes the mob makes stupid and immoral decisions and it takes an authoritarian figure to check the impulses.
This is exactly what I’m trying to say.

And based on the definitions provided in this thread, I ought to class myself as an advocate for NATIONALISM rather than fascism.
 
Not really, I get what you’re trying to say, I just don’t see it as valid. I don’t care if commies have a different opinion. They’re wrong, and I don’t have to entertain their opinion as valid.
 
But I’d prefer voting be done away with almost entirely
Well perhaps one day communism could take over this country and you would get your wish. Religion could be totally illegal. It would be illegal for you to have religious icons, illegal to worship publicly, illegal to speak religious opinions. And you would get what you want, NO VOTE.
 
That’s my preference. One that submits itself to the authority of the church.
 
Or maybe a catholic monarch will seize power and we’ll drive atheist secularism from our culture and institute a second high point in church history in which the majority are all practicing Catholics and the church is the focal point of western culture.
 
Isn’t Liechtenstein :liechtenstein: a Catholic monarchy?

Monaco also comes to mind, although it is a principality.
 
Or maybe a catholic monarch will seize power and we’ll drive atheist secularism from our culture and institute a second high point in church history in which the majority are all practicing Catholics and the church is the focal point of western culture.
Could go eithier way. So why not pray for free democracy? So that everyone can live in peace with his or her convictions. Catholic supreme monarchs, or communist party dictators, are both the wrong answer. Freedom is the correct answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top