[davidw]

> I don't understand how you can attribute "sane = I agree with" to that poster. What evidence do you have for that?

His original sentence:

> he is talking about something none of the other candidates are talking about: returning freedoms and sanity to America

It's a cheap rhetorical trick. "Sanity" is defined as what his favored candidate wants to do, no?

> I would posit that "insane" and "broken" are problematic in civil discourse, as these words tend to evoke strong emotions.

Exactly.

[stcredzero]

It's a cheap rhetorical trick. "Sanity" is defined as what his favored candidate wants to do, no?

It depends. If Ron Paul were to reverse his views on positions where individual rights and freedom are the foundation, do you think the original poster would still support Ron Paul?

If your answer is no, then he's clearly not defining "Sanity = What favorite candidate wants."

If the answer is no, then the original poster is guilty of ineloquence and inadvisable word choice. By the same token your position is misattribution of the other poster's motivations.

[davidw]

My above phrase was not quite correct: it's not about the candidate, per se, it's about labeling as 'sane' those policies that he agrees with. Presumably, he could have a great time trading 'insane' and other verbiage with the people who view the lack of universal health care in the US as 'insane', as one example, and no one would be the better off for the whole exchange.

By the way, you, too, are insane for not agreeing 100% with me:-)

[stcredzero]

By the way, you, too, are insane for not agreeing 100% with me:-)

It would be seem we agree on many points, but you've thought a little more about the meaning and implications of (un)civil discourse. At first glance, maybe one would feel compelled to label insane proposals as such. But the lack of a clear arbiter of what is sane and not sane is a bit problematic.

Everyday life has always involved a bit of insanity and unreality, yet somehow we all muddle through.

But what if a person's value system defines certain ideas as wrong, and unsupported adherence to those ideas as insane? Is it wrong in a society that supposedly values free speech to express this belief?

[davidw]

> Is it wrong in a society that supposedly values free speech to express this belief?

Absolutely not! But there's a difference between expressing it here and on some other site. There are plenty of sites for political debate, from free-for-alls with all included, to various flavors ranging from neofascists to anarcho capitalists to communists and of course everything else in between.

I'm skeptical of many such sites producing anything other than volumes of vitriol, because many people do believe other people's positions to be 'insane', and if that's where you're starting from... it's difficult to find common ground.