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.

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.

What you are referring to is the avoidance of the ad hominem fallacy as a debate tactic. I for one would love to see fewer fall into this trap noting that I am not immune. But there is also the categorization of people, belief sets, etc. which tread a very fine line between being ad hominem and being accurate adjectives. In most cases, talking about principles instead of people makes it very easy to focus on the critical aspects of a conversation rather than making things personal. One can focus on what is true rather than who is right.

But I will also echo what CBJ said that we do have some control over how we react to such name calling. A wise man once said “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”

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.

The human invention of moral condemnation has roots no more than 10,000 years deep. It took the invention of special language and internal reflection for that to be possible. Friezes from Ur show men being beaten for not paying their taxes. Our modern view of that must be contrasted with the fact the action and its meaning would have been incomprehensible to the first humans.

And it was a long, slow process. But it became so ingrained that even the gentle Quakers and Amish have their shunning for transgressions that are merely deviations from custom, not the actual harming of a person or the cause of material loss. "She is not simple", a moral condemnation among them, would be a backhanded compliment here in the Gulch.

But, as Jerome Tucille pointed out It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. The anthology The Virtue of Selfishness included an essay from The Objectivist Newsletter, "How to Live a Rational Life in an Irrational World." The answer: never fail to pass moral judgement. That essay did close with the warning that you do not need to actually announce your verdict to the guilty. It is often socially inappropriate to do so, but, at least in your own mind, you must be clear on the issues.

That said, Ayn Rand and her inner circle did promote a nice, poetic vocabulary of condemnation. It enabled followers to craft epithets such as "range-of-the-moment context-dropping Kantian social metaphysician."

On the other hand, facts are real. Someone who advocates placing others above self as an abstract principle actually has their hand in your pocket -- and ultimately around your throat.

I say that quite consciously. Many of us here and in "Objectivish" circles are in protective services: police, military, courts. The harsh reality is that protecting others often requires the ultimate price. That said, however, we are not kamikaze. In fact, those in protective services are specially trained so that what seems like derring-do to the outsiders is actually practiced routine. On the other hand, nothing about fire fighting is routine, and when fire fighters are lost, it is usually in teams. As individualists here, the very concept of teamwork may be alien to many.

Moreover, in this forum in particular, but also online in general, we tend to write short statements. I am easily one of the most verbose here, but I write for a living, and this is all an exercise for me before going out to my day job. Even so, we all tend to risk being misunderstood because we write ad hoc. And writing does not carry the emotive meanings of face-to-face interactions. It is why we often invite each other out for a beer to discuss something. That usually never happens, as we live far apart, but the intention is that we recognize the limitations of writing.

I also offer an upside to moral outrage, especially in forums such as this. We tend to share common values. When someone expresses an opinion that we perceive as outside that norm, we are taken aback. "If you believe what I do, how can you believe that other claim?" I think that the problem there is ultimately internal. Their deviation causes you to question your own beliefs. Before that can happen though, cognitive dissonance closes off those pathways, and the internal questioning never happens. Just for example, some of my best friends have been communists.

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.

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.

Out of logical arguments.