First, kids don't read Kant. The volume in question was an assigned text in a college philosophy course. Second, I didn't suggest the Wilder warning mentioned i

First, kids don't read Kant. The volume in question was an assigned text in a college philosophy course. Second, I didn't suggest the Wilder warning mentioned in the first paragraph suggested anyone should disregard engagement. My second paragraph is talking about other instances of what I first encountered (in the first paragraph), and the act of holding up a historical figure's dated views as "all the reason needed to completely disregard engaging with someone who is recognized as having had a transformative impact on history and thought". There are no logically inconsistent claims being made here. Two separate paragraphs, two separate but related things being discussed. The first is not laying a logical foundation for an argument in the second.