Let's think about the implied argument behind "why is this is a special case?". It is one thing to see this argument is deployed in a sincere effort to seek the

Let's think about the implied argument behind "why is this is a special case?". It is one thing to see this argument is deployed in a sincere effort to seek the truth and/or some better form of governance. It is another thing when this argument is simply a convenient thing to say to get what one wants. There is often a nice antidote to the "why is this a special case?" argument that consists of two questions: 1. "What is your alternative?", and 2. "Is this alternative going to solve the problem better than what I proposed?" In other words, if you don't like the current special-casey-ness of this policy, what alternative will you support that we can _actually_ put into practice? If the person/organization does not actually support some workable alternative that will solve the problem better, that is quite telling! It suggests that solving this particular issue is not really a priority for them. Some people really are pedantic in the sense that they care about some logical consistency criteria more than solving particular problems. When one sees this in an individual, one might suspect various forms of confusion, poor prioritization, and maybe even some mental pathologies. When one sees this in an organization, particularly one making a public "argument", one should probably suspect they are deploying whatever argument suits their purpose, which is often just to derail progress on something they don't like. Of course the meta-issue here is far from simple. It would be better if laws were enacted at the right level of abstraction, using some semblance of reasonableness. I often groan at the patchwork of laws that we see here in the US. But don't forget that in a democracy, the will of the people is far from rational, and the political will is even more mercurial. Very often one is better off taking what you can get rather than waiting for something better that may never materialize. P.S. I find these sorts of discussions are interesting (in a sense), because it is hard to say to what degree someone is trotting out whatever logic simply suits their purpose. I've found this applies both to established interesting making "arguments" in public as well as individuals of all ages trying to defend what they have already decided is the best course of action. (Both are tiresome, frankly -- a part of human nature that I find rather counterproductive -- a suboptimal strategy that we've landed on.)