Comment 16 by xsjadolateralus :

However, its ridiculous to automatically assume that just because you disagree with someone on a particular issue that you treat that person with contempt until they agree with you.

Hypothetical:

Person A thinks person B should die. Person B disagrees and gives reasons. Person A disregards reasons and insists person B should die.

Well, by your standards, we shouldn't treat person A with contempt. Nor those who think we should be splattered on pavement, bombed to annihilation, take away child/woman rights, secularism. We shouldn't treat them with contempt.

Psychopaths, we shouldn't treat those persons with contempt? Child rapists? You can see where I'm going here.

No, it isn't so simple. Some people need to be held accountable to what they say and do and sometimes contempt is the apt response.

It's not that we simply disagree, in other words. We disagree on things that determine life and death of children, rights, the future of civilization. Some ideas are only worthy of contempt, like those I've listed.

After all, we aren't just disagreeing on red and blue here...