The scaffolding is in place and it is Kingwell who is looking to kick it down. One strut on the scaffold is the principle that there are facts we can discover and mutually agree upon through reasoned discourse. Can this be challenged? Of course, and Kingwell does so aptly. But if a principle is not always, or even often, observed, does that mean we abandon the principle? In order to have discourse instead of violence, we need to hold discourse and reason themselves as unassailable virtues to which we should all aspire. At least this leaves open the possibility of challenging a hateful person on the grounds that their views don't make sense. In Kingwell's world, the only argument you can make against that person is that you carry a bigger stick. Another strut on the scaffold is the principle that truth is in the domain of the universe, free to be discovered by anyone. If we are to build new scaffolding constraining what truths are permissible, who will be the builders? And why them?