Well, actually, if you don’t go after SA with intent to maim from the start, he will try to respond to you with an equally thoughtful tone. Haul out the invective-launchers ab initio and he’ll shoot back.
Now, granted, what he considers reasoned, unbiased, straightforward assertions and arguments, teeming hordes of us consider reality-challenged, if not outright delusional. (Sorry, friend SA, but so it is. 
) But he isn’t flinging shit just to see if he can get a ruckus started, like certain posters of both the left and right have done recently (and been smacked down for – we all know who they are).
He sincerely believes the positions he asserts. He really does listen to the arguments of his opponents, if expressed without gratuitous animadversions, and will respond in kind. Which is not to say that his arguments are ipso facto valid. Hell, I regularly cast about for a sturdy wall to forcibly applymy pate to when reading posts by my pal Starving Artist. But, believe it or not, he can be brought to acknowledge error at times. Why, in this very thread I accomplished the Herculean task. 
So, yeh, go at it hammer and tongs on the merits of his arguments. (What merits? I hear you say. Heh.) But do keep in mind, he’s arguing from a particular worldview that (to many of us) irreparably distorts his perceptions and hence deductions, rather than from any hardheartedness or evil intent.