From a keen and expibasketical examination of political actors in action, it seems that, at the end of the day, who is right and who is wrong in political science discourse makes no sense: except that the wrong could only be the people who argue their ontological-epistemological positions without also first understanding the position of those they are disputing with. This intriguing discovery may quite justify the counsel that it is wise not to plunge into an argument without understanding what the debate is really about. Or, that we first remove the log in our own eyes before trying to remove the speck in the eyes of others. When we heed to these simple frantalkist principles in communal affairs, the community progresses steadily; otherwise, there is only precipitated down sliding. Democracy is not a ¿my way or no way¿ thing. It is truly learning to gracefully bend to the constitutionally and conventionally reached will of the majority.
