• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Democrate part is communist

Prometheus85

Active Member
Great job at knocking down a strawman. Your FAVORITE way of arguing. In fact, its the favorite of the left.

Ill restate my words WITH clarification. And probably to NO avail.

Ya.......less regulation (i.e less does not mean NO regulation, pay attention to the words), less taxes (i.e. less does not mean NO taxes) = more liberty. Pretty dam simple equation, isnt it?

And all that equals LESS "authoritarianism" and less fascism.

More regulations and more taxes = "authoritarianism" and that = fascism and communism.

Smh you didn’t address any thing I said in my response to you. All u did and keep doing is arguing ad nauseam
 
Smh you didn’t address any thing I said in my response to you. All u did and keep doing is arguing ad nauseam

I didnt have to argue what you said because what you said was a strawman argument. All i had to do is correct you on that and then clarify to you what should have been clear the first time by my use of the words "LESS" and "MORE". Sadly i gauss you dont know what those words mean.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, thats an interesting angle. However, christianities history is a mix bag.

Communisms history seams to produce the same result.
Christian history with Christian theocratic government isn't a mixed bag. It's always been oppressive and marked by atrocity. Does that reflect on Christianity or theocracies?

Just like it's possible to be a Christian and for secular government, it's possible to be communist and against totalitarianism.
 

Prometheus85

Active Member
I didnt have to argue what you said because what you said was a strawman argument. All i had to do is correct you on that and then clarify to you what should have been clear the first time by my use of the words "LESS" and "MORE". Sadly i gauss you dont know what those words mean.

apparently you accuse everyone of engaging in straw man. That’s a common defense mechanism of yours. Perhaps you couldn’t address anything I said because you just didn’t understand anything I said.
 
Christian history with Christian theocratic government isn't a mixed bag. It's always been oppressive and marked by atrocity. Does that reflect on Christianity or theocracies?

It reflects on niether. It reflects on peoples selfishness and hiding behind God and christianity. It actually goes stark against the commandment "you shall not take the NAME of the Lord your God in vain. For God will not hold guiltless those that do". Its not refering to using Gods name as a curse word. Its refering to doing selfish evil and saying God has your back.

Just like it's possible to be a Christian and for secular government, it's possible to be communist and against totalitarianism.

Right......however, it doesnt work. Communism would work if no one needed incentives, but people need incentives.

Christian Theocracy would work IF people wer not selfish. But, since they are, it wont work.

Lets go with what works.
 

Prometheus85

Active Member
@Jollybear ill ask you again. Are u aware regulations are put into place to protect the public? And what’s your ethical position on taxes? Saying less taxes equals more liberty is very vague.
 
apparently you accuse everyone of engaging in straw man. That’s a common defense mechanism of yours. Perhaps you couldn’t address anything I said because you just didn’t understand anything I said.

Its not an accusation. Its a FACT that you spoke a strawman argument.

Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
 

Prometheus85

Active Member
Its not an accusation. Its a FACT that you spoke a strawman argument.

Do you even know what a strawman argument is?


How did i misrepresent what u said? I simply just pointed out the errors in your argument. By all means if I misrepresented what u said prove it
 
How did i misrepresent what u said? I simply just pointed out the errors in your argument. By all means if I misrepresented what u said prove it

I did prove it.

All your doing now is making yourself look stupid.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Yes or no?
 
Top