On rewarding civility

[Flail]

Civility should not be rewarded in debate.

[Vladd44]

I have difficulty with the concept. A rule of civility will encourage others to emulate civility, conforming their words to expectations. But compliance does not equate civility.

Especially on a forum where people can be divided into two major groups, with an extreme majority of each side convinced the other is on a fools errand.

For theists, how can they honestly be expected to be civil when their bible condemns the non theist in so many clear and distinct ways?

The Bible says the unbeliever is deceitful and sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mk 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3).

Having the viewpoint that someone is a sick, deceitful, full of evil, not understanding child of wrath who loves darkness over light IMO makes any verbal effort at civility a sham and dishonest at best.

It would almost be like admitting to your friend you had sex with his wife, but claiming civility over the matter because you used a condom.

On the other hand, non theist tend to consider theists superstitious, close-minded, fearful, interfering and arrogant. I know arrogance is one considered mutually, but for me personally the arrogance of presuming to know "THE TRUTH" makes it worth mention.

The victim of civility is honesty. Placing importance on verbal arrangements to soften the message ultimately serve to water down what is being said. Making it more palatable to the ears by being imprecise.

Ultimately individuals do come to respect each other for a variety of reasons. But a rule will never generate respect or civility. That is a battle decided within each individual... and for each individual.

[McCulloch]

I have difficulty with the concept. A rule of civility will encourage others to emulate civility, conforming their words to expectations. But compliance does not equate civility.

True. The rule provides a only minimum level of civility which must be maintained. As has been pointed out, uncivil comments do not further objective debate, so this rule helps to keep the debates on track. I, for one, do not see that civility can be equated with conforming words with expectation.

Especially on a forum where people can be divided into two major groups, with an extreme majority of each side convinced the other is on a fools errand.

All the more reason for the civility rule. We are not debating the alleged proof of the four color problem. We are debating personal issues such as abortion, homosexuality, politics and the meaning of life. And we are doing so in a forum open to all. There is no academic requirement to show that your arguments are valid. Posts are not reviewed for objectivity.

Even though it can be shown and is generally accepted that name calling, insults and other uncivil ad hominem remarks are completely unsuitable debating techniques, many on both sides find themselves using them.

For theists, how can they honestly be expected to be civil when their bible condemns the non theist in so many clear and distinct ways?
[...]
Having the viewpoint that someone is a sick, deceitful, full of evil, not understanding child of wrath who loves darkness over light IMO makes any verbal effort at civility a sham and dishonest at best.

Why not?
Civil: My religion teaches that you are condemned to eternal torment because you love darkness over light.
Uncivil: You heathen sinner, I'm gonna enjoy seeing you roast in hell!

It would almost be like admitting to your friend you had sex with his wife, but claiming civility over the matter because you used a condom.

I would hope that my wife would have the sense to insist on the use of a condom if she chose to have sex with someone else. Why would I be angry with my friend in such a circumstance? I do not own my wife nor do I make her decisions for her. Unless the sexual activity was non-consensual, I see no reason for anger or incivility.

On the other hand, non theist tend to consider theists superstitious, close-minded, fearful, interfering and arrogant. I know arrogance is one considered mutually, but for me personally the arrogance of presuming to know "THE TRUTH" makes it worth mention.

But you have shown that you can make the statement that you consider them superstitious, close-minded, fearful, interfering and arrogant without being uncivil.

The victim of civility is honesty. Placing importance on verbal arrangements to soften the message ultimately serve to water down what is being said. Making it more palatable to the ears by being imprecise.

Which is more precise? Which is more civil?

1. Why don't you expend a few brain cells and think about the drivel you spout before you post, you f*** moron?
2. Your post shows a distinct lack of cognitive reflection. Not only is it self-contradictory but you have failed to acknowledge or respond to any of the several well thought out arguments that have been made against it.

Ultimately individuals do come to respect each other for a variety of reasons. But a rule will never generate respect or civility. That is a battle decided within each individual... and for each individual.

True, but that is no reason to abandon either the rule or the reward.