France objects to "Waterloo" coin?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There is no moral way to define a position that denotes the attitude of absolute power which is what a dictator is.

So, in your view, absolute power can never, EVER be exercised morally?

 

Not calling Napoleon a king did not change that he was a dictator.

But no one here is claiming that Napoleon was not a dictator.  Of course he was (he was also a king, but you seem to have forgotten that).  This issue is whether all dictators are inherently bad simply by virtue of exercising dictatorial powers.  The surest test as to whether a leader (dictator or not) was an effective, good leader is 'Did he leave his society in better condition than he found it?'  For Napoleon, the answer is a resounding 'yes.'  

I find nothing moral about a figure that is not subject to oversight and review.

Then you are sadly limited in your thinking - one has nothing to do with the other.

It is the same type of cherry picking believers pine about the kind NT Jesus losing fact that the totality of the entire bible is still run by an unmovable figure that does not need the consent of the governed.

No, it isn't cherry-picking on our part, it is a blind spot on yours.


 

All Napoleon did was replace  centralized power with his own.

If that's really what you think, you may want to read up on Napoleon.

It is like quoting the NT, sure you can find some corn in poo, but that doesn't make poo good.

Again, pointless conflation.
Boru