Your attempt at labelling my explanation as an 'excuse' is a trick of yours to try and convice the reader that I have failed at something and had to explain it away, and through its use you demonstrate your desperation.
On the contrary, your assertion that your making excuses in lieu of actual reasoning was some sort of "trick" is negated by your own words which form the excuses, (these are available upthread). There is no "desperation" involved in my pointing this out however, one can speculate as to whether there was some contained in this manuever of yours.
I have failed at nothing, while you have failed at your own goal and been called on it.[/quote]
Merely claiming that you have not failed to support your arguments does not constitute supporting them. Neither is your unsubstantiated claim that I have failed in my goal to delineate the differences between rational and irrational basis, (since my responses within this thread continue to demonstrate that I have - not because I merely say so but, due to the content of my substantiations).
[/quote]My position is exactly the same as it was when we started this back and forth argument and that is "You don't really choose to be irrational"
Then you are implicitly taking the position that, either no irrational decisions are ever made or, that any irrational decisions are made upon a rational basis. The former is manifestly untrue; people _do_ make irrational decisions, (as evidenced by the consequences of those decisions), whether or not they 'feel' their decisions were rational - not "rationalized". The later is false because it is illogical to presume that all decisions which are formulated upon an irrational basis result in consequently rational choices. Such an assumption precludes that decision resulting in irrational choices, (which they manifestly do, as evidenced by the consequences of making irrational choices).
People notice exactly what I do and there is no deceit in my nature. I quote the point I am responding to and I give my response. You continue to insist that this is suspect of something without ever stating what that suspect something is.[/quote]
Once again, you seem to expect that your word alone, (sans substantiation), will be taken for your claims, (in this instance, that there is no deceit on your part here). This insistance rests upon a reliance that your selective snipping to manipute the context of the exchange won't be noticed.
[/quote]You said "Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made.". This is an accusation by you that one of the two must hold true. It is an accusation you continue to stress and therefore you are asserting to the reader that any deliberate reason I had contains a sinister motive. My 'snipping' (while 'deliberate' to avoid obfuscation) is purely incidental to any motives you are trying to apply to me with your use of words such as 'deliberate'.
Since you've just admitted that your snipping was deliberate, (although the 'rationale' you provided attempts to obfuscate a manipution of the context by shifting it away from the cognizant points), I will accept your conceding this point and move on.
"It is obvious I meant something other than word games as when I cautioned you about games I had just pointed out where you showed your hole card regarding your previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational in the previous sentence."
The poker analogy alluded to was yours, as shown by your use of the phrase "hole card" during the course of this exchange.
You can't just make a claim like "as I have shown" and expect it to go unchallanged.[/quote]
Then neither can you, albeit you attempt to do so over and over again. Once again, my responses are still available upthread and they do show valid counters to your assertions, (not because I say so but, because the content counters your assertions).
[/quote] I indicate and highlight, you repost and obfuscate and accuse me of trying to bog down the debate?
Yet, you accuse me of obfuscation while you have practiced this tactic throughout this exchange. Bah, this tangent leads nowhere except for accusations and counter-accusations, round and round.
I've not only accused you of the above, I've indicated where you've presented evidence supporting those contentions in the form of your previous replies. A guess could be hazarded as to whom that evidence would stick to.
You are being very disingenous here. You have simply accused with no supporting evidence only to call my quotes something and then use the same quotes as evidence of the something you called them. It doesn't get much more cirular than that.
There is no disingenuity on my part in providing the evidence of your own words to substantiate my allegations. What you are falsely characterizing as "circular" is tantamount to characterizing security camera evidence of a bank robbery as 'circular' evidence supporting the contention of robbery. That's a sophist and disingenuous dodge worthy of a shyster lawyer.
That's an amusing counter; if you're implying that I'm assisting you in bogging down the debate by countering each of your diversions and bringing the discussion back around to the premise contended, (i.e.; whether or not faith and belief are irrational or rational basis).
[/quote]If you wish to abandon your position that people choose to be irrational then feel free to[/quote]
I've neither indicated nor, stated any such thing. Inferring that I did appears to stem from an irrational basis.
Are you also "indirectly" implying that all choices are made on a rational basis? Are you further implying that using an irrational basis constitutes making rational choices?
Yes I assert that every choice made can be reduced down to a weighing of values within the person choosing until such values indicate a solution (excluding such cases as chemical or electrical imbalances that generate random events and thus don't actively constitute a deliberate choice).[/quote]
Good qualifiers there however, it presumes the a priori condition that "every choice" involves making rational selections, (sans your qualifiers). Such a presumption precludes those irrational decisions that people make on a daily basis. Just because you feel that your decisions do not stem from an irrational basis does not mean that they do not. For instance, basing a "belief in god" upon an irrational basis of "faith" does not constitute making a rational decision.
[/quote]Yes I also imply that an irrational basis can be ustilized to make a rational choice, even if the chooser is aware of the irrationality of it and this is where human rationalization comes from. Without ever including the irrational there would be no need to rationalize.[/quote]
Yet, an irrational foundation can also be the basis for making an irrational choice. Further, "rationalizing" is not equivalent to logical reasoning; it is an accounting for an illogical choice by way of an excuse which is not logical.
[/quote]Being that we are not slaves to pure emotion or pure logic but also that we are inescapably influenced by both as well, we can remanipulate the weights of these variables and even add more variables in order to come up with a solution we find preferable to the purely logical solution our brains may tell us (in the case of the emotional side being too great to resist that is).[/quote]
Here, you provide support for my contention, rather than your own. Namely, that such decisions are 'remanipulated', (rationalized without logical reasoning into excuses), and that such decision-making processes are not entirely rational. Therefore, you are tacitly admitting that people do indeed make irrational decisions/choices are either pre-, or post-rationalize them. That process falls within the bounds of the definition of sophistry.
It is a dubious theory not because of what it partially accounts for but, because of what it does not - the irrational choices people do make using irrational basis. My 'theory', (not presented as one but, let's presume it was), is supported by an enormous volume of evidence of examples of people making irrational decisions. If you are not implicitly contending that those people are making irrational decisions stemming from a rational basis, we can discuss that. Again, equating excuses with reasoning is a false premise.
Without seeing some explanation of this theory of your, I will have to take the word of economists, socialogists, criminologists, psychiatrists, my own personal understanding, etc, over your theory (and to put it bluntly your theory is composed only of the assertion that the evidence indicates irrational decisions because you don't understand the people and situations behind the evidence).]/quote]
Since you'll no doubt snip what was actually wrote in order to manipulate the context again, what I actually stated was that my "theory" was not stated as one but, that it is nevertheless supported by an enormous volume of evidence of people making irrational decisions. How do we know they make irrational decisions? Because of both the irrational basis used to make those decsions, (emotional bias), and the results of such decisions. Were these decisions made upon a purely rational basis, the conclusions would be purely rational.
[/quote]An excuse is sometimes considered as justification after the fact, I know, but the excuse is often formed during the turmoil of the reasoning process and solved as a problem on its on in order to eliminate a particularly resistant variable.[/quote]
Thank you for providing either a deliberate or, accidental example of "rationalizing" in the form of your meta-rationalization of rationalization itself. And here you are claiming not to play word games, for shame.
[/quote]Your statement was "if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention". This is classic begging the question in that you assume (beg the question) that "belief" & "faith" are irrational basis for choices and this is the very point of contention.[/quote]
It is not "begging the question" since the inverse of the premise would be, 'belief and faith are a rational basis' and this is manifestly not the case, under the parameters of the meanings of those terms. Due to the justifiable a priori assumption that belief and faith are not rational aspects of the decision process by nature, the assertion that they are an irrational basis is a premise rather than a conclusion.
Community Forum
Topic: God is a Fake (Read 141293 times)
February 05, 2020, 06:42:44 am
