An Aside: Reasoning > Conclusion

We have always felt that a being that depends upon logic to reach their conclusion is an easier being with which to deal. Regardless of the veracity of the conclusion that this being may reach for any given topic, if the reasoning the being uses to reach said conclusion is sound, the being may be reasoned with and easily corrected. If the reasoning is truly sound and the conclusion is truly wrong, the premise from which the being started must be incorrect. If this is the case, then the disagreement is truly with the premise, and the premise may now be substituted as the conclusion and argued. If the being is truly logical, and if the arguer is also, they may now correct the flaw in reasoning that led to this premise, or they may find another premise which they may now substitute as the conclusion as they continue the cycle. Eventually, the two will find that they have corrected the logic of the other and they are now in agreement, or they will find that there is a premise which cannot be reasoned and that that is the only source of disagreement. Whether their difference of opinions regarding the premise is too grievous to bear is now the only question, and usually, we hope, it is not.

We recognize that most of the beings we have encountered are not this pliable, nor would all problems be solved if they were. We do however believe that this is the standard for which we should all strive ourselves, our actions not being excusable by the actions of others, nor, therefore, by the shortcomings of our own human nature, and the standard with which we should treat all beings, so as to not misjudge nor condescend improperly.