I would agree that there are some characterizations (as you so correctly pointed out, jdg) that are made by the left than are abhorrent, but the right does the same thing. You only have to look through this thread and others to see some of the choice names and descriptions that are frequently used.

Lying in court is not even slightly comparable to uncivil discourse. It is an act with real external consequences, a method of causing force to be used on someone. An insult has no consequences except feelings.

What do you think of a police officer in court lying under oath? The common excuse is, "If he's gonna lie [the accused], then I gotta lie." The real problem, though, is what lying under oath does to the officer. It degrades his integrity, his own view of himself.

Even if your opponent "deserves" a rude reply, the real consequences are to yourself.

If someone else is uncivil, that is their problem, not yours.

Moreover, the real debates are not across party lines, but within them. If some millennial nihilist blogger calls President Trump a Nazi, that does not carry much weight within the Republican leadership. OTOH, if it were here in the Gulch that we began pointing out that the President's nationalist-socialist policies of market protectionism, border walls, and fear of aliens is known from history to lead to total disaster, that might be understood.

I have no problem with being civil to people on the other side who are equally civil. But those who characterize climate skeptics as anti-science, Glenn Beck as crazy, Trump as a Nazi, or Milo Y. as a white supremacist disqualify themselves immediately.

One of the major reasons the left have been so successful in public discourse is that their opponents give them the benefit of doubt but they do not return the favor. The time for handing our opponents needless advantages is past.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-ne...

Quiet true.

There is a resemblance I agree.LOL

Exactly, but it is all too pervasive, and it is hard to ignore when there is the desire for rational discussion.

Do I dare say this? Especially since I asked for civility and lack of vilification? With apologies to anyone I may offend... but if you are doing look-alike comparisons, how about Roz from Monsters, Inc and President Trump (just add the glasses)?

It's like a look a like contest https://www.google.com/search?q=david...

The "long form" of these comparison links are not the same. I had some kinda accidental success here that I almost deleted to start over.

https://www.google.com/search?q=georg...

https://www.google.com/search?q=georg...

Out of logical arguments.

Love Hut-looking! Dino stuck with Sci-Fi!

Indeed. Spellcheckers don't no watts inn the rite con text oar whose bettor at lang witch righting. :)

I remember. Thanks.

Brigham Young according to a site,bbuckeye.

Your opinion is so noted.

Grammar, spelling, and punctuation rank right up there, puzzlelady. I started a thread about that several weeks ago.

I agree. Just don't ever trust your rhetoric to autocorrect. :-]

Thank you, minesayn. Those are my very same sentiments. Let us deal with ideas, not accusatory hominems. Moreover, I would still like to see better grammar, spelling and, yes, punctuation, which bespeak clearer thinking. If the "edit" button were permanent, we could make corrections as needed even later.

I always liked the challenge of creative, intellectual insult. It's interesting to see if the target "gets it," as in realizing they've just been insulted. I was first fired upon in this manner by a professor who declared that a concept was "too immense for your dormant intellect." Of course I got it right away, but was entertained by his inventive invective.

Don't ask a dino to be civil to libtards in the Jackass Party and to people like O'Dumbo, the Evil Hag and Jabba the Hutt looking George Soros. .
I just can't help it when it comes to coping with the tyrannical infliction of outrageous stupidity.

Who said this?

While I would greatly appreciate civil discussions. Most, not all, but most people are unable to remain civil, when there beliefs or even opinions are called into question. I would argue that the more strongly held an opinion the less likely that one will remain civil in the face of adversity.

I agree. Making fun of someone's name is a crude form of invective. The left complained about "Ronald Ray-gun, the fascist gun in the West." But immediately after the 2008 election, writers on Objectivist blogs began calling the President "B.O." I was disappointed to see that.

Here, I just ignore the writers who used "Hitlery" and "Shillary." It was easy to do because their comments were vacuous. Name-calling was the limit of their ability to engage.