Thanks. Interesting chap, although I fail to see what link he has to this. Never mind.
No to
never mind.
It's relevant in the "sport" of country bashing, which is one of my points, and which may be taken as the intent of the OP. Often Clive is described as a "villain," kinda like a "dictator" is generally a villainous term. He of course was not considered a villain during his times. It's just tit for tat I'm engaging in when these country bashing posts come about. Whether it be from a teenager or a full grown adult. In reality, no country has a clean slate.
If Bush is indeed a dictator, then it should be shown by either (1) peer reviewed literature, (2) commissioned finding, or by (3) personal testimony/experience. A dictatorship by definition is the rule of a country by one person. There is no evidence that Bush has this type of power, and any perceived attempts rightly or wrongly of this tendency have been checked in the US system of governance. In fact it appears that Bush readily abides by Supreme Court rulings and congressional mandates, as have all other US presidents. If the OP did not mean Bush, then who exactly is the dictator of this dictatorship?
Any form of expository prose, or statement posing itself as fact, should be backed up as I described above in 1-3. As an example, if I say the government of Nigeria is corrupt, I am simply country bashing. However, if I say the government of Nigeria is corrupt because when I tried to import products XYZ into Nigeria their customs officials extorted money from me, then I have experiential data to back up my claim. Likewise if an organization like the UN or a respectable NGO commissions a finding that says the government of Nigeria is corrupt, then perhaps I also have a valid claim.
As another example, if I claim Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a dicatator, but then the reality shows that he was elected by popular vote, then I am simply bashing Venezuela or Mr. Chavez. However, if I state that Hugo Chavez is a dictator, because I personally saw his Chavistas firing on peaceful demonstrators in Venezuela on Thu April 11, 2002 (which IRL I did see in person), and I therefore claim that because of his free use of force on his people that he has probably hijacked his country's elections too, then perhaps I have a leg to stand on with my assertion of Chavez being a dictator.
The lesson here is that instead of looking like a buffoon and posting fashionista type labels like "dictator," that for one to be regarded as intelligent and taken seriously, then one should at least provide some type of evidence for one's assertions. This may not be important when one is still in school, but step out into the real world, and it makes all the difference in the world.
Now I would like the OP to explain how the incident in question represents "dictatorship."
And just on a further note. One of the reasons that I have enjoyed banter with folks like
Loomis is because he is well traveled and generally has some type of evidence as described in 1-3 when we engage in discourse. It makes the discussion much more interesting and thought provoking.
4A
Edited by Four Aces, 16 October 2006 - 08:59 PM.
This topic is locked
