On any topic worth debating, it can be hard to get the facts, there are different views about short term vs long and risk, different ways of thinking about the problem. For example, if democrats could have solved the problem of black poverty why haven't they by now, with 50 yrs+ of dominance in the politics of most big cities? Perhaps because it is a complicated problem. Everyone has limited reasoning capacity and limited time and information. The golden rule here would imply that we give others the benefit of the doubt as to how they arrived at any given conclusion instead of just screaming *ist and *phobe at everyone.

A willingness to look -- actually look -- goes far, when combined with a desire to see the truth and do something about what you find.

And I'm all for listening -- but also for asking people to "show their work." (Instead of just taking for granted that they arrived at their point through solid reasoning).

Kant recall? Who does he think he is, a politician?!

Gog & Magog, I think that I can help y'all here:

(singing)
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.