XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: abelard3@abelard.org 
  
 On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:11:56 +0100, JNugent  
 wrote: 
  
 >On 14/07/2019 10:43, abelard wrote: 
 >> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 02:07:49 +0100, JNugent  
 >> wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> On 13/07/2019 19:41, abelard wrote: 
 >>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 16:58:25 +0100, JNugent  
 >>>> wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> On 13/07/2019 13:05, abelard wrote: 
 >>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:53:42 +0100, JNugent  
 >>>>>> wrote: 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> On 13/07/2019 12:50, abelard wrote: 
 >>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:35:52 +0100, JNugent  
 >>>>>>>> wrote: 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>> On 13/07/2019 12:19, abelard wrote: 
 >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:13:52 +0100, JNugent  
 >>>>>>>>>> wrote: 
 >>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>>> On 13/07/2019 10:42, Ian Jackson wrote: 
 >>>>>>>>>>>> In message , The Todal 
 >>>>>>>>>>>>  writes 
 >>>>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim Shipman, political editor of the Sunday Times, criticised 
 the 
 >>>>>>>>>>>>> €sinister, absurd, anti-democratic statement this evening 
 threatening 
 >>>>>>>>>>>>> journalists with arrest for printing government leaks€, and 
 asked the 
 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Met on Twitter: €Do you have any comprehension of a free 
 society? This 
 >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn€t Russia.€ Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP, told the 
 remarks 
 >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested a €slippery slope to a police state€. 
 >>>>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>>>> OMG! How naive can all these people be? €Do you have any 
 comprehension 
 >>>>>>>>>>>> of a free society?" The OSA is there for a purpose, and without 
 it it's 
 >>>>>>>>>>>> likely that we wouldn't have a "free society". 
 >>>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>>> +1. 
 >>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>> can you make a much more full argument for your proposition... 
 >>>>>>>>>>          pretty please! 
 >>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>> The Official Secrets Act is a part - an important part - of the 
 >>>>>>>>> provisions for ensuring the security of this country. In any state, 
 not 
 >>>>>>>>> just the United Kingdom, an inability to keep secrets secret means 
 that 
 >>>>>>>>> the military and other defences of a state cannot be properly 
 planned, 
 >>>>>>>>> mustered, maintained or deployed. 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> thank you... 
 >>>>>>>> that's plausible and sufficiently convincing 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> you can however argue similarly for the protection 
 >>>>>>>>         of a dictatorship 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> how can you distinguish? 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> It applies to every form of government. There is no need to make the 
 >>>>>>> distinction. Dicatorships are just as much under a duty to protect 
 their 
 >>>>>>> citizens from harm by criminals, foreign governments or an invading 
 force. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> but such regimes have regularly and often done grave harm 
 >>>>>>         to their citizens 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> So have democracies. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> But does that mean that ordinary criminals in states you call 
 >>>>> "dictatorships" must be free to commit their knaveries? Or that 
 invading 
 >>>>> armies must not be effectively opposed? Or that terrorists must be left 
 >>>>> untrammelled by the security and intelligence services? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> all choices to be made by individuals 
 >>> 
 >>> Hardly. 
 >>> 
 >>> The choice is a prime example of those to be made by elected (or 
 >>> dictatorial) governments. 
 >> 
 >> fine...they are choices 
 >> 
 >>>> and even by gangs as in socialist dictatorships 
 >>> 
 >>> You're trying to evade the point. 
 >> 
 >> content of that remark obscure to me 
 >> 
 >> define 'the point' 
 >> 
 >>>> 'shoulds' and 'musts' is the language of the sheep pen 
 >>> 
 >>> Such words are described in political science as "normative". 
 >> 
 >> why not describe them as 'magical' 
 > 
 >Because they aren't magical. 
 > 
 >>> Try to show that terrorists and other criminals should be free to do as 
 >>> they like. 
 >> 
 >> 'should' is individually attributed...it means 'i want' 
 > 
 >I'm fairly confident that I am one of a vast majority in wanting the 
 >actions of criminal deviants curbed and punished. 
  
 so, you believe that it's a matter of majorities... 
  
 >> 'criminal' is individually attributed....it means 'i don't want' 
 > 
 >...or more credibly: "We don't want...". 
  
 democracy/majorities... 
  
 the 'we' in other countries choose otherwise...or are 
     forced to do otherwise in dictatorships 
  
 you are trying to claim your preferences are laws of nature 
  
  
 -- 
 www.abelard.org 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)