In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?