You’re probably right about the rhetoric. Ther are times when outrage is morally called for, and emotive appeals might be called for in some of them. But I would view them as weapons of last resort.

As to “insult”, that’s another hard word to define. Are some justified? Well, many are true, and some are certainly *deserved*, but when should they be used? I’d say hardly ever, tempting as they are.

It seems to me we need to make a distinction between using insults to shame people, to urge them to change their behavior, and trying to use them to get people to change their minds. ISTM insults simply do not persuade anyone to change their minds. They might change *behavior* when the insulted knows the insultor speaks the truth, but otherwise? Hmm. I doubt it.

I am sure that many people don’t even realize they are being insulting when they shouldn’t be. They seem to think that telling the truth removes all culpability, that speaking the truth is always virtuous. I don’t think it is.

I would almost entirely agree with your list, though I think there is a place for emotive arguments.

I wonder if there should be a special rule outlawing the “you need an editor” kind of insult. However, egregiously condescending though that is, it’s probably covered by several of your guidelines.

Not sure what your post at 10:52 refers to. I am perfectly willing to read and even agree with Eric Bugyis if he took the time to think through and make his point with care. Rhetoric that runs off the rails gets us nowhere. As I said above somewhere, maybe he should get an editor who would point out any lapses in his argument. Maybe a friend or relative should be asked to take a look before he posts. (I also posted above my critique of his first two paragraphs @2/06:11:58–though I am not volunteering to be his editor! Maybe you should step up to the plate.)

Your question “what is civility?” is like the “obscenity” question. I don’t even know where to begin to define it. But I’m surr that it is, as Kant might put it, a condition of even the *possibility* of a democracy.

So what ust describes, if not defines it? Here’s my take.

Civility:
* Recognizes that one can be wrong about one’s opponents and also about oneself
* Is respectful, even of opponents, even of most enemies
* Never presumes to know the motives of strangers
* Rarely presumes to know the motives of non-strangers
* Does not insult others even by insinuation
* Persuades with evidence and non-emotive argument
* Listens attentively to others
* Cherishes truth
* Admits one’s errors gracefully.

Then it is your position that the GOP members of congress simply don’t care about the welfare of the American people?

“Some of your comments are examples of why genuine dialogue never happens.

“Just look at the health care mess. Saying things like “he has asked them to consider the needs of the American people” assumes that the other side isn’t considering the needs of the people. They are, they just think that theirs is a better way to do it. And as for “doing nothing” it’s not that they are for doing nothing, it’s just that , from their perspective, it might be better to let the fire burn than to throw gasoline on it.

“The debate would be more productive if it was about how best to accomplish the goal rather than accusing the other side of not wanting to do good. When we can actually address the merits of an idea rather than the motives of the parties we’ll start getting somewhere.”

Some of your comments are examples of why genuine dialogue never happens.

Just look at the health care mess. Saying things like “he has asked them to consider the needs of the American people” assumes that the other side isn’t considering the needs of the people. They are, they just think that theirs is a better way to do it. And as for “doing nothing” it’s not that they are for doing nothing, it’s just that , from their perspective, it might be better to let the fire burn than to throw gasoline on it.

The debate would be more productive if it was about how best to accomplish the goal rather than accusing the other side of not wanting to do good. When we can actually address the merits of an idea rather than the motives of the parties we’ll start getting somewhere.

If two people are authentically trying to communicate, they both are looking at a common reality and attempting to communicate about that reality. Reality is the context and common denominator and arbiter of the conversation, so communication demands a mutual, respectful exploration of reality.

“To perceive, as much as possible, all things are they really are and to act according to this truth … society as such is sustained by the truth publicly proclaimed and upheld … The natural habitat of truth is found in interpersonal communication. Truth lives in dialog, in discussion, in conversation; it resides, therefore in language. A language is well ordered when its words express reality with as little distortion and as little omission as possible.” (Jospf Pieper, Abuse of Language)

Power relationships avoid reality; it is the only way they can be maintained. There is no shared reference to reality, no requirement to explore it and therefore no need for evidence and reason. There is just the use of language as a tool to either dominate or be dominated.

“The relationship based on mere power, and thus the most miserable decay of human interaction, stands in direct proportion to the most devastating breakdown in orientation toward reality.” (Pieper)

“Then we are faced, in short, with the threat that communication as such decays, that public discourse becomes detached from the notions of truth and reality.” (Pieper)

“Instead of genuine communication, there will exist something for which domination is too benign a term. On one side there will be a sham authority, unsupported by any intellectual superiority, and on the other a state of dependency.”