RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/20/2009 2:50:53 PM)

How you define "rational" and "irrational" determines how you use it, of course.

I wouldn't define your preference for soccer over other sports as "irrational", if you had reasons you liked it better. It would simply be an opinion, based on your preference, and entirely rational. Even if I disagreed with all of your points.

"Rational" as "provable" is basically a scientific definition of "evidence", and is at odds with the above usage of the term.

Is a belief system consistent, and an individual uses those beliefs in a systemic or logical manner - I would call that "rational". It doesn't mean you have to agree with them, or their beliefs, but "irrational" certainly isn't something I would call them.

The term "irrational" has a strong negative connotation, as well as a judgmental tone to it. Can a religious believer be "rational"? Or by definition, you would always assume them "irrational"?

After all, if they are "irrational", then there is obviously something wrong with them, and they sure shouldn't hold public office, or positions of trust! Maybe they should be evaluated for a mental deficiency, and receive psychiatric care?

I would suggest that the use of "irrational", for the description of any religious belief would not be the preferred method of labeling or discussion.

Firm



philosophy -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/20/2009 3:00:01 PM)

...well seems to me we got ourselves a semantics fight [:D]

.....so, of course, first thing i did was wander over to the ol' wiki to see if my powder was dry........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

......still digesting it here, but i would make the point that i was trying to use the words rational/irrational in a non-perjorative sense.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/20/2009 6:22:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...well seems to me we got ourselves a semantics fight [:D]

.....so, of course, first thing i did was wander over to the ol' wiki to see if my powder was dry........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

......still digesting it here, but i would make the point that i was trying to use the words rational/irrational in a non-perjorative sense.



I read the first paragraph or so from your link. I think it is pretty on point.

I did not really think that you were intentionally using "irrational" in a pejorative sense ... however, that is exactly what it is and what you are doing.

How would you feel if people started calling you "irrational"? I bit put-out, I suspect?

When non-religious people start using the term "irrational" in describing anyone holding religious beliefs, it sets the frame of reference in a very negative manner.

Firm



TheHeretic -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/20/2009 8:59:17 PM)

Just flip it on them, Firm.  "I consider the belief that humanity has anything 'all figured out' to be completely  irrational, and the proponents of such beliefs to be ineligible to receive my vote."

Neat trick, huh?  I stole it from the global warming cultists who kept co-opting every phrase that might add more than black/white positions to the discussion.

*edit for dumb typo



DomKen -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/20/2009 9:09:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just flip it on them, Firm.  "I consider the belief that humanity has anything 'all figured out' to be completely  irrational, and the proponents of such beliefs to be ineligible to receive my vote."

Neat trick, huh?  I stole it from the gloval warming cultists who kept co-opting every phrase that might add more than black/white positions to the discussion.

A nice, but fallacious, turn of phrase.

Try and find those people who think they have anything, beyond simple mathematics, 'all figured out' and you shouldn't vote for them. The most recent example of a national figurte that fits that bill is, of course, GWB.



TheHeretic -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/20/2009 9:29:55 PM)

Thanks, Ken, but I'll stick with the global warming cultists I used in the initial example.  [:D] 




philosophy -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/20/2009 10:00:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I did not really think that you were intentionally using "irrational" in a pejorative sense ... however, that is exactly what it is and what you are doing.

How would you feel if people started calling you "irrational"? I bit put-out, I suspect?


........well now. Of course if someone starts calling me irrational i'm going to want to know why.  However, if someone calls my beleif that soccer is a superior game to baseball, i'm going to nod and agree with them. Because it's true.......and i've never seen much percentage in trying to argue clearly untenable positions.

quote:

When non-religious people start using the term "irrational" in describing anyone holding religious beliefs, it sets the frame of reference in a very negative manner.


....well, once again, if a non-religious person calls a religious person irrational, that's one thing. However, if a non-religious person suggests that, say, teaching creationism as a science is irrational.......thats something else. It's true for a start. Creationism fails to meet the standard of a science. It would fit perfectly well in, say, philosophy.........but to call it a science is irrational.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. People are not usually irrational per se......but many of our actions and thoughts are. More of us who recognise that, the more sensible many debates will be.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/21/2009 4:27:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just flip it on them, Firm.  "I consider the belief that humanity has anything 'all figured out' to be completely  irrational, and the proponents of such beliefs to be ineligible to receive my vote."

Neat trick, huh?  I stole it from the global warming cultists who kept co-opting every phrase that might add more than black/white positions to the discussion.

*edit for dumb typo

heh!

I do a lot of "flipping" like that, Rich. I usually call it "holding up a mirror", especially when people fail to see their own inconsistency in a position, even if I might agree with their point.

Just to open up their minds a little, of course. [:D]

I hadn't thought to use it quite this way though.

Good point.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/21/2009 4:35:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

....well, once again, if a non-religious person calls a religious person irrational, that's one thing. However, if a non-religious person suggests that, say, teaching creationism as a science is irrational.......thats something else. It's true for a start. Creationism fails to meet the standard of a science. It would fit perfectly well in, say, philosophy.........but to call it a science is irrational.


To call it "science" would be incorrect, I agree. To advocate it though, if you believe in it, would be entirely rational within the context of your belief system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Love the sinner, hate the sin. People are not usually irrational per se......but many of our actions and thoughts are. More of us who recognise that, the more sensible many debates will be.

I think people are basically irrational per se, if you consider "rational" to mean to use logic and science as the foundation of one's beliefs.

I believe that the majority of people first take a position - and then proceed to attempt to use logic and the mechanisms and forms of their belief system to support that position.

Even if they are "correct" in their conclusions (in other words, if I agree with them), the genesis of their position and belief was emotional, and not rational.

They hate it when you point it out to them.

Firm



Vendaval -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/21/2009 1:27:11 PM)

When calculating for human behavior never omit the "Idiot Factor".


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
People are not usually irrational per se......but many of our actions and thoughts are. More of us who recognise that, the more sensible many debates will be.




philosophy -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/21/2009 2:40:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

When calculating for human behavior never omit the "Idiot Factor".



....oh, i don't. However i also don't consider it the base state. The idiot factor has popped into my life on a multitude of occasions....too many of them at my own invitation. However, i don't think i'm an idiot per se........i try to extend the same courtesy to others [:)]



ienigma777 -> RE: Conservatives would never attack a politician's children, right? (7/22/2009 9:52:26 AM)

OP: During the Clinton era; Rush Limbaugh attacked THe Clintons, bring Chelsea (Spelling???) into his diatribes; poking fun at her physiognomy.

Anyone rember that fiasco?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875