• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Not if I’m recounting a personal experience, no. Humans are not purely rational creatures, otherwise laissez faire capitalism would solve all the world’s problems.

    If I wished to be purely rational, then perhaps. But personally I do not think all feelings are worth disregarding.

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Would you mind providing evidence of a scenario in which it’s good to be irrational? Because it sounds like you have some level of distaste for being rational, but I’m not seeing any source to back that up.

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Would you mind providing evidence of a scenario in which it’s good to be irrational?

        I think I found the seal club, guys.

        Asking someone to provide evidence of a scenario in which something is irrational is an irrational thing to ask. I’ll state why with a kind of example. So, say you have the choice between two boxes of corn flakes. You look between the two, and you decide to pick one. You, you specifically, decide to pick one. Perhaps, the red one, over the blue one, I can’t state this for you. Make up a reason why you chose that box. Now, this reason, which you have chosen, would it necessarily be a rational reason, for you to have chosen the box you did?

        Presumably, yes, unless you’re going to argue against yourself, and say that, in this instance, it’s actually good to be irrational. In this instance, then, you’ve made a rational decision, you had a reason to believe the thing that you did. Now, taking this example, and what I’ve formerly said, about you not being irrational, in mind, can you think of any given scenario in which you’ve ever made an irrational decision? Perhaps you can, even, and it was bad, but also, presumably, you thought it was a rational decision at the time. It was probably (here is maybe where it gets iffy) only in hindsight, that you thought your previous belief was irrational.

        Taking this into account, and extrapolating off of that experience, we can intuit that they probably didn’t mean what you meant when you (not you, the other guy, but also you right now I suppose) said the word “irrational”, they don’t share your definition of it. Because, kind of, based on these examples I’ve given, there would never be a circumstance in which it would make sense, i.e., “be rational”, for someone to make an irrational decision. This is a straight paradox, if we take that definition to be what they meant.

        Then, considering this, right, we can assume they probably meant something else, other than what you have assumed. I will not claim to know what they meant.

        Blam, sea lion that, motherfucker. You probably can if you tried really hard, but blam. Sea lion it. (this could be a pretty good example of sea-lioning, too, I gave you some pretty low-stakes, specific stuff to contest, there, that isn’t really part of the main argument, i.e. it’s the definition of a sealion).

        • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nah, I don’t feel like it. But if I were to do so, I’d probably say something like “this is laughably absurd, come back when you know how to debate” so as to avoid letting you steer the conversation.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        No, that’s a frankly absurd request. What is or is not “good” is not something sourceable, it’s an entirely subjective question. What makes you think everything has some definitive source?

        • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Excuse you, I’m being polite here and you’re calling me absurd. Can’t a person have a civil conversation without devolving into name-calling? And why haven’t you given a source? Are you unable to back up your claims, or are you unwilling to engage in rational dialogue?

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m sorry, but if you want me to remain what you’d define as civil, you’re going to need to be reasonable, not ridiculous. You haven’t answered my question. Where does this belief all things are sourceable come from?

            • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              I have been unfailingly polite and you’re being rude, calling me ridiculous just for trying to engage in rational debate. Sources are the backbone of reasoned discussion, and if you’re unwilling to engage in that, maybe don’t make such bold claims in public.

              • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                You seem to have a proclivity for making sweeping generalizations and overarching statements. You’re not actually the God-King of the Universe, though, fyi. Regardless, I apologize for not meeting your standards for explaining my own anecdotal experiences.

                  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    You did get me a little riled up a few posts ago. The switch to rationality vs irrationality was a good one. lol