Replies

Precisely. That was my point. It matters which person is in there, not the generic principle that the kid either can or can't be allowed into that place.

I've noticed a pattern. You come up with a point you think is clever, and then it has to be painfully spoonfed to you past a wall of non-comprehension why it isn't. And then you ask the other guy why he doesn't admit he was wrong, usually just before the exact point you ought to admit that.

On the above, that's NOT what I said. Now PAY ATTENTION.

What I said was, if you have a choice of letting whoever lives next door be alone with the little girl or not, without regard for who it is, and you know the guy next door is frequently replaced, and the last guy was a child molester, and there's a good chance that the next guy will be too, you decide not to let her be alone with the next door neighbor.

I that know with actual next door neighbors, you can let one be alone with the kids and not the next one. I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one. If you let Bush have a particular power, and Hillery gets elected in 2004, she's going to have that power.

You see, in our system power doesn't go to particular persons, it goes to offices. We don't know who the next president will be, but we do know there will be a democrat in there eventually.

Now do you get, or should I use bolded all-caps?

"What I said was, if you have a choice of letting whoever lives next door be alone with the little girl or not, without regard for who it is, and you know the guy next door is frequently replaced, and the last guy was a child molester, and there's a good chance that the next guy will be too, you decide not to let her be alone with the next door neighbor."

Yes, and I think that's a good example of why your blind adherence to principles over the person is wrongheaded. If Tiger Woods or Mr. Rogers moves in next door, you're going to throw out your former, generic "principled" policy of not letting your child go next door to see your neighbor; the policy that you had in place when your next door neighbor was a convicted child rapist, previously. You see, the person in question really does make a difference.

"I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one. "

You mean like letting one President have the line item veto, briefly, but then no other President got it? Or like initiating a prohibition on alcohol during one or two administrations and then repealing that power for other administrations? Or like reigning in Presidential powers with something like the War Powers Act so that other Presidents didn't have the power that one President in particular had?

"Now do you get, or should I use bolded all-caps?"

Goodness, not the bolded CAPS treatment! No, anything but that! Logic, facts, and reason would actually be preferred, if you can find it in you for once.