When explaining why heroin is bad and should remain illegal, how often do critics point out the drug&#x27;s pros? Are critics not being objective or honest when they adamantly condemn it? Or, what about when assessing the results of Hitler&#x27;s reign in Germany? Are historians being dishonest and subjective when they don&#x27;t bring up the positive consequences of his actions?<p>There are countless other examples. If someone feels very negatively about &quot;Free Basics&quot;, I&#x27;m not sure why they&#x27;re not being objective or honest by leaving out potential pros.