On this vexed question of "civilised'

~~ There is a clear distinction to be made between denouncing states or peoples who perform activites one doesn't approve of [cap-pun will serve as the immediate example] as "uncivilised", when such is patently not the case by any rational definition (China? USA? Singapore?)~~

~~ and giving at one's *opinion* that one considers such-and-such conduct as "unworthy of a civilised country", which is merely and clearly a statement of opinion, not of fact, which others may or may not accept as reasonable.

For example: The country which could produce the elaborate 1930s rallies which were the subject of Leni Riefenstahl's films was clearly one which had achieved a high degree of civilisation, by any reasonable definition of the term; but few would dispute nowadays the proposition that much of its conduct was unworthy of so civilised a nation.

This seems to me an important distinction which Richard & others are failing to make, and are consequently struggling and fumbling in a state of confusion which is preventing their making any rational contribution to this discussion.

~M~