Posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2006, at 20:14:42
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2006, at 1:54:25
> > > I guess one could argue that in a democracy, a political leader has the vote of a majority, or at least the most votes. So, by critiquing a political leader in a democratic world one is perhaps [more] likely to step on toes than by critiquing a political leader appointed by his father, or by God, or by guns, bloodshed, or bankrolls.
> What do you think about the point that llrrrpp made above?
>
> BobWell I don't agree. Following that logic I could be blocked for criticizing Bush (because he was democratically elected) while it would be ok to criticize a monarch like the king of Bhutan (Jigme Wangchuckor) or the exiled king of Tibet (Dailai Lama), or the Pope (another head of state).
Why should we be trying to determine who is good or who is bad?
The simple way out of this quandry is to just let people criticize any leaders. But if posters start acting uncivilly toward each other as a result of those criticizms, THEN block or PBC them.
warm regards, Jake
poster:Jakeman
thread:661433
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/662364.html