Re: Editors: threat or menace?

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:34:03 -0500, Ric Locke
<warlocke@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1gjzsqzlhwdm9.1kv97r081867$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx> in

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 03:07:23 -0400, Brian M. Scott wrote:

I am in fact more leary than most of general principles, and
a firm believer in judging actions in context. I observe,
however, that active protesters tend to be (or at least to
claim to be) guided by principles that they want to apply
pretty generally, so I don't think it inappropriate to ask
questions that might force them to think about the actual
application of those principles.

If you don't have a basic stated principle within which
the particular context can be examined, all you have is
the caprice of the judge.

First, I did not in fact say that one shouldn't have some
basic general principles. Secondly, without them what you
have is the *judgement* of the judge(s); there is no logical
requirement that this be capricious.

Discarding the sum total of the Law since approximately
the Magna Carta and substituting the whim of whoever is
appointed to decide strikes me as a bad idea.

I agree, and I didn't suggest doing anything of the kind.

Of course, you are imposing a principle, viz., that you
and those of your particular political persuasion are
always and inevitably Right, [...]

No, I'm not. In this discussion I have not in fact taken a
position on the issue at all; I have merely explained why
the reported question does not seem to me to be illegitimate
or unreasonable in the reported context.