and an end to all this Republican vs. Democrat blather. Seriously, we’re better than this, or at least I hope so. There are plenty of other places to spew rhetoric; I thought this website might be a safe haven, a place where we might actually discuss ideological differences and policy preferences without resorting to childish name-calling. Apparently I was mistaken. Partisan rhetoric belongs on redstate or dailykos, not on a friggin philosophy website.
You must be one of those democRATS.
Religion, philosophy, politics & economics are all inextricably intertwined. To say they don’t belong on a philosophy site, especially in the social sciences forum, is to put your head in the sand. I do agree that civility and name calling are merely inflammatory and should be avoided and in some cases banned. It’s nothing but a substitute for thinking and/or having a rational, reasonable argument.
Of course, I didn’t mean to imply that political topics don’t belong on this forum. I wholeheartedly agree that they do. I was merely suggesting that we can do so without resorting to petty name-calling. (See the first response to my post.) And for the record, I’m not a democRAT. I’m supporting neither McCain nor Obama in the upcoming election. Nor, for that matter, Barr, McKinney, Nader, or Baldwin. If I do bother to vote, which is increasingly unlikely (the hassle of getting an absentee ballot seems hardly worth it given the choices, and since I’d be voting in NJ it doesn’t really matter anyway), I’ll probably do a write-in vote for Ron Paul.
Since you brought it up, if it weren’t for defense, I’d vote for Ron Paul too. If I were going with a protest vote, I’d probably vote for Barr. But without even a real protest candidate, I’d have to go with the glimmer of hope for smaller government and realistic defense, rather than the party of appeasement that has blinders on for anything other than more taxes, bigger government and more government intrusion, all of which means less freedom.
I was just trying to bring some comic relief. In fact, I voted for Clinton when he ran, then for Gore, then somehow, in a daze I voted for Bush’s second term.
No offense taken, Smears. I actually had a sneaking suspicion that’s what you were up to, but not knowing you better I couldn’t be sure.
more like a RepubliCAN"T
Fuck civility.
I used to think like that, but I found out that without it, all we end up in an adjective chucking contest (since we’re not face to face and can’t use knives and guns).
We are all in a adjective chucking contest. You merely refuse to see it.
I’m not.
Given the inelegant nature of this war, people just don’t realize who’s chucking the right adjectives even when they get hit right between the eyes. 
I believe it’s pretty good guess that only 1 in 10,000 realize it when they are wrong and change to being correct. I’m one of those 1/10,000, and I was brought to my senses, might neigh on many year ago, by a reasonable, civil person–an atheist actually.
Your apart of it whether you admit it or not. Were all apart of it. We all partake in society or civilization which operates on conflict and competition. There is no escaping it.
Right and wrong. Pathetic terminologies you are throwing around.
What does it mean to be civil?
Then so are you.
I never denied as such. It includes everyone who partakes in it’s systemization.
Just what I’d expect from a “Mr. Doom”.
It doesn’t operate on conflict and competition. It operates on a dynamic duality between conflict and cooperation.
We all act toward self-empowerment, but self-empowerment doesn’t = conflict. Cooperation happens just as often. It’s called strategic alliances in the political sphere, joint ventures in business, friendships in our personal relationships and inquisitiveness in a debate sphere.
Do you deny these things exist?
It all depends on the goal at hand. If the goal is proving that your opinions are correct, then conflict is inevitable. If the goal is learning, expanding or honing your opinions, then cooperation is inevitable. Both are self-empowering, so you choose a course depending on which is more empowering at the given time and situation. The title of the thread is “A call for civility,” meaning the OP thinks now is a time to stress the latter rather than the former, not that such should always be the case.