My point is that the means produce the ends and the means of realpolitik produce crappy ends. I'm still not sure you understand what I was trying to say; regar

My point is that the means produce the ends and the means of realpolitik produce crappy ends. I'm still not sure you understand what I was trying to say; regardless of whether your take on realpolitik is correct or not (and I don't have a dog in that hunt) it's effectively a non-sequitur to the discussion. EG: If I were saying that I can't make it downtown by 5 o'clock because: - it's too far to bike in the available time - my car is in the shop - and I missed the last train ...your statement would be something like: - trains have uncomfortable seats ...which may be true or false but doesn't really have much to do with the previous thrust of the conversation, does it? The relationship between your point (which you've made twice now) on "realpolitik" and the posts of mine that mention "realpolitik" is well-nigh isomorphic to the example I just sketched. If you don't believe this I will be happy to make the analogy more explicit. As this has now happened twice I can't tell which of the following holds: (i) you understood the analysis I made of the politician's situation but don't care to comment on it; you'd rather discuss what you think of realpolitik. Given the tangential nature of realpolitik to the point I was making this leaves me confused. (ii) you didn't really get what I was writing but saw a few words in there you have opinions on and so to continue the conversation offered your opinions on those words independent of any consideration as to the structural role those words played in the point I was making.