"I've put foreword the rock solid evidence that the earth is flat, it was all in the tea leaves! Do you want to argue with that?"

No, not really.
Not because I disagree with you;
I don't like entering arguments that go around in circles.
But I will say I think the idea's pretty stupid.

Lets also not forget that although everyone has the
right to freedom of expression. And this right includes
the freedom to hold opinions - but this right does
carry with it duties and responsibilities and may be
subject to restrictions and penalties as are prescribed
by law and are necessary in a democratic society in
interest of things like - national security, territorial
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
for the protection of the reputation and rights of others,
and so on.

We do have freedom of expression but we also have a duty
to behave responsibly and to respect other people's
rights. Authorities can restrict your freedom of
expression if you express views that encourage racial or
religious hatred.

- Words are a sword and a shield -
You can use them to attack others with;
And you can use them to defend yourself, or others with.

Because words can cause harm;
One needs to wield them wisely.

There's no reason why one shouldn't tell the truth or speak freely,
One shouldn't use words to deliberately inflict too much harm to people who aren't able to take it.

Making fun of others is fair and reasonable in the game of ideas.
If someone says something stupid, others have a right and obligation to tell them so.
Humility comes from being humiliated.

But we shouldn't set out to humiliate or inflict harm on others,
- Unless doing so is necessary to highlight our own point of view -

I think your last line AC, could be a Lexical ambiguity.

It appears to undo all that preceded it.

Dan

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Many thanks for that Britannica Encyclopedia article.

I find it interesting from an historical point of view but largely centred on the assessment of public opinion through opinion polls and market opinion research.

It completely ignores the following :

The 2018 Trust and Democracy in Australia survey found that only 41% of voters were satisfied with democracy. Federal government is trusted by just 31% of the population while state and local governments perform little better with just over a third of people trusting them. Ministers and MPs (whether federal or state) rate at just 21% while more than 60% of Australians believe that the honesty and integrity of politicians are exceptionally low.

Trust is lowest in political parties (16%) and web-based media (20%).

The situation is remarkably similar in the US. The 2018 American Institutional Confidence Poll found that only 40% of respondents say they are "somewhat" or "very" satisfied with "how democracy is working in the United States". Political parties and congress come at the bottom of the list of the 20 US institutions in which respondents declare they have confidence.

The Pew Research Centre's 2018 Liberal Democracy's Crisis of Confidence report indicates that a survey was conducted in 2017 in 38 nations on five different approaches to governing: representative democracy, direct democracy, rule by experts, military rule, and rule by a strong leader who "can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts".

The findings were eloquent. A median of 66% across the 38 countries believed that "a system where citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on major national issues to decide what becomes law" would be a very or somewhat good way to govern their country.

The authors of the Pew Research concluded:

People generally like representative democracy in theory, but many are frustrated with it in practise. In surveys, many say that their vote does not give them an adequate voice in national politics, that elected officials do not care what people like them think.

Not a word about any of this in the Britannica Encyclopedia article.

.

Hi Foxy,

The only advice I can give regarding this Forum is firstly never apologise and never explain, I think I said that before. Secondly regardless of any demands resulting from the first principle then apply the "armadillo" principle, which is self explanatory, and it also covers the first principle extremely well. I think I said that before. The problem is when you start explaining yourself to certain fruits on the forum, and we have several, the next thing you know you're in a conversation with a deranged chimpanzee, which is not a good conversation to be having at anytime in life. The chimp will send you crackers! Do you recall the now long aholed poster ALTRAV, a perfect example of what I am talking about.