Civility might mean a lot of things for different people. Some people might view it as mere ‘rules of etiquette;’ that they only need to be civil in front of people. Others might even be offended by such perception, as they themselves hold civility as dear as morality, and practice it perhaps more within their hearts than what they appear to show. Others might not practice civility as all, seeing it as a pretentious and superficial pretense. Even the two sides who practice civility flourish many other alternations and modification, like for example, those who might practice civility as time and circumstance allow. All these different acts of civility and its many displays might fuel some aggression in its operators, who would view other perceptions as false. The ‘full-time’ civilized might be affronted by the deception of the ‘part-time’ civilized, who then would call their ‘opposition’ sellouts who have given out their true selves to serve others. The two competitors would then join sides and both despise the uncivil for their ‘unruly savagery.’ It should be no surprise that such conflicts exist, as the world has seen its fair share of violent disputes over differences, whether they be political, ethnic, or religious. Just like there is man and woman, earth and sky, dogs and cats (or wolves), there is life and death, and good and evil. John A. Hall, in The Importance of Being Civil, states that civility, amongst other things, is toleration: and it’s our acceptance of individualism that promotes understanding and prosperity and ensures peace and organization, key components of civility. Therefore in order for us who endorse and practice civility to truly be as civil as we say, we may never attack or affront those whose views on the very same subject of civility that both makes and divides us are different from ours. I admit that my view of civility was much different than what the book suggests. Before reading the