XPost: uk.politics.misc
From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm
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.
> 'criminal' is individually attributed....it means 'i don't want'
...or more credibly: "We don't want...".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
