The saying says people can disagree without being disagreeable. Most of my lawyer friends understand this because they do not take arguments personally. Arguments should be logical sparring matches. Unfortunately man non-lawyers do not realize this. They personalize arguments.
This week I wrote a post entitled "NC Legislature Should focus on jobs and education, not same-sex marriage," and I was ripped a new one by a commenter. Although my argument was the legislature should focus on jobs and education (a perfectly reasonable assertion), the commenter attacked me and said I would have 'flunked debate class.' This is probably because I said the same people who are angry about gay marriage are upset with illegal immigration. This is a reasonable argument, and it is true.
The commenter was upset that I argued a position contrary to his. So he attacked me. This is the same tactic used by Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann alike. In short, this kind of argumentation-- if you can call it that-- is disagreeing and being disagreeable.
As the saying goes, why can't people disagree without being disagreeable?