What was your biggest disagreement on CAF

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Fascism is only right in the sense that it isn’t quite as far left as communism.
Click to expand...
Of course, that depends on your definition of political left and right.

Traditionally, it had nothing to do with the size of government. (Classical Liberals were considered to be left of pro-Monarchist Conservatives for example.)

The model is all messy now after 200 years of use anyway. Every political camp tries to redefine it to fit their narrative. It is virtually never useful in debates, since the two sides most likely don’t even agree on what it means to be right-wing or left-wing!

(It’s no wonder it cannot correctly show the similarity of communism and fascism - even the original model put Absolutist Monarchy and Radical Totalitarian Dictatorship on opposite sides of the spectrum!)
 
If we decide to look at them “in principle” and from the point of view of “a small government proponent” then it is difficult to see why communism would be immoral, since it aims for the withering away of the state. In practice, of course, both fascism and communism have proven rotten.
 
Last edited:
I often ran into disagreement with posters who adopted what I call Solo Traditio. They follow the hierarchy only when it agrees with Tradition, and don’t follow when it allegedly does not.

In effect, this is the same as having no living Magisterium at all. The person is not reviewing hundreds of pertinent documents, they are reading a few paragraphs from a website.

Just as with Sola Scriptura followers, they are obedient to a given template, not really to Scripture or Tradition.
 
Last edited:
Certainly I approve of the right to private property, but I’m not sure that the concept of holding property in common, however inefficient it has proved in practice, could be described as immoral in principle. Indeed there may be historical examples of situations in which it was far from immoral.
 
Yes there is, but if you are discussing the rights of people in a capitalist society relative to their rights in a putative communist utopia you are into Marxist theory in a way unsuited to this medium, I suspect.
 
I’m not keen on it myself. But it’s not too easy to discuss communism without bringing Marx into it.
 
I’m curious as to what definition you would give the Native Americans society? They held all land as community property but did have private goods. Would they be considered communist? Socialist? Something else?
Thanks…
 
I’m not an economist, so maybe I look at this all wrong, but I don’t think the NA fit neatly into that category.

They were mostly hunter-gatherers who were starting to dip their toes into agriculture. Their culture was informed by this reality.

We do have archeological evidence that there were some mound cities with large population centers in the Southern US. But they had mostly vanished by the time Europeans were on the scene.

Cities take complex social structures and hierarchies to build.

I wish we knew more about them
 
Gospels written post seventy A.D. and TULIP were my biggest fights.
 
I mean, it makes sense that you’d get pushback on that. It’s pretty offensive to call people irrational and irresponsible, or stupid and dishonest.
 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
They were mostly hunter-gatherers who were starting to dip their toes into agriculture. Their culture was informed by this reality
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. I can’t see either communism or fascism as meaningful concepts in a hunter-gatherer society.
 
And yet, up until 1930, every Protestant denomination taught the same about birth control as the Catholic Church.
 
I think one of my favorite/least CAF phenomena was posters who tried to front like they didn’t enjoy arguments while jumping into them all the time:

“Do we reeeeeaaalllly need another thread about this topic {while posting furiously in every one}”

Lol you’re not fooling anyone!
 
Tis_Bearself said:
the constant parade of people with “Mary problems” was most annoying to me.
Click to expand...
I remember years ago on the old forum, I used to defend Mary rigorously. There was a poster who was listed as Catholic who attacked anyone who had the slightest devotion to her. I remember on one thread he was doing his usual downplaying of everything Mary. I responded to defend her and he replied; I knew it was only a matter of time before the Blue Army would show up! I almost fell off my chair!
 
…not exactly a disagreement. I’ve been a CAF contributor for nearly as long as CAF has been around. Way back on CAF time, there was one user that basically rattled me awake with his bad contributions. This person was diabolical with his words unlike and unmatched by most of the worst here. He was so cunningly evil ripping and tearing his way around CAF until one day he disappeared. I never did follow up to see if he was banned or simply quit or returned with a smoother more deceptive approach to diabolism.
 
Forcing personal piety and throwing the Protestant moniker is annoying. As if we don’t have sanctimoniousness already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top