The fact that we (may) disagree
doesn't at all mean
that we cannot agree;
in fact, as I see it,
all it means
is that we are both
mutually unique-

Fancy that.
We are individuals.

Maybe it is
that the greatest good can come
from the mean of our viewpoints,
and, hence,
the philosophy
of democracy.

If only
such a philosophy
was popular
among thy
who decide
our policy;
that is to say,
the Media:

it isn't democracy;
as long as you have faith in them,
it's whatever the **** they tell you;
whether you realize it
or not.
(Preferably not.)

Anyway,
the discrepancy between our viewpoints is not a sign of mutual distancing, but rather a sign of alternative philosophies.

According to Statistics,
larger "n" values (sample sizes)
lend themselves to a greater degree of accuracy.
Such known,
why do so many adhere to a perspective
that deliberately depends on limited n values?

I suppose
that an answer to that is
'the Shadow.'
Juangians, raise your hands! Yeah!

As an artifact of the Id and Ego,
(Freudians, raise your hands!),
it is ever-evolving;
yet, as an artifact of the Mind,
it is ever-apparent:

Command it,
or is shall command thee.
So, when someone disagrees,
do not meet them with resent,
but seek to meet them with respect.

Through compassion and respect
shall we re-inherit this Earth
from they, who seek control
via daemons of aforementioned
'public opinion.'

But, then again,
that's just my opinion.