DS, I may have reacted inappropriately, but I don't think that it was entirely without provocation. Jon'C has been exhibiting outright contempt for anyone who he thinks disagrees with him to a sufficient extent.
I mean,
this whole post for example, is nothing but a non-stop barrage of pointlessly antagonistic straw men. Half the stuff he said I could have agreed with, but he simply characterizes people he disagrees with as morally reprehensible idiots and lays into them, without bothering to find out what they actually think. Judging, lazy stereotypes is *not* respectful debate.
Or
here, there I can agree his overall points, but he states them in such an incredibly acerbic way that it's essentially a preemptive attack against anyone who dares disagree with someone. It's one thing to state a position, it's another to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a "racist halfwit mouthbreather fundie". Wouldn't discussion be a lot more worthwhile if we took for granted that other people might not have considered all of the same points that we have, and at least give them a chance instead of skipping right to the rage?
Jon'C has this bad habit of getting really worked up, and then everyone has to just avoid discussing it any further or they get tied up in a moral pissing contest. It's frustrating, because while Jon'C is a smart guy, his tenancy toward judgmental attacks make even trying to discuss certain things with him nearly futile, unless you happen to agree with him already. It's an attitude that, to a lesser extent, seems to be shared by several other members of this forum. If people could just tone things down a notch or two, I think discussion would be a lot more worthwhile.
It is worth bearing in mind that unless someone is almost super-humanly objective, you won't change their minds unless you treat them with respect and empathize with them.