If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/22/psa-encourages-kids-to-steal-parents-guns-hand-ove/

Sleeper 13 Productions released the controversial video on Dec. 13. It shows a pouty, young boy wandering into his parents’ bedroom, stealing a handgun out of their dresser drawer and then shoving it into his backpack.

The boy then carries what is presumably a loaded weapon into his classroom. After class, he approaches the teacher, takes the gun out of his backpack and slams it onto her desk.

“Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house,” the boy says.

“Our children deserve a safe world,” the ad says. “Stop gun violence now.”

I can't imagine any potential problems following this PSA recommendation.

 

[Einherjar86]

Mail bombs are inherently irrational?

Not inherently in the metaphysical sense that nothing's inherent...

But given that we're a global community of human beings with, generally speaking, comparable empathetic responses and attitudes toward acceptable behavior... yes, mail bombs are "inherently" irrational.

Now, narrowing the scope further:

Given that we're talking about America, in which the purpose of sending mail bombs seems to be one of three possibilities--genuine harm, false flagging, or trolling--yes, all three are certainly irrational.

And if we're dealing with an irrational person, then I'm no longer convinced by any fallacious appeals to circumstantial and/or coincidental details. Even if you end up being right--and I stress this point--your reasoning is still shit.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Since when does conformity to some biological consensus imply rationality? The irrational (M-W: not logical or reasonable) aspect is that most/all of the bombs have been complete duds with no chance of working, from what I've heard so far. The would-be bomber may have a 70 IQ and think that a pipe attached to wires and a clock will magically create an explosive, which would imply irrationality since he performed an action with no chance of it meeting his goal. If his goal was to troll the media, it seems like his plan worked well, and was rationally conceived.

 

[Dak]

Not inherently in the metaphysical sense that nothing's inherent...

But given that we're a global community of human beings with, generally speaking, comparable empathetic responses and attitudes toward acceptable behavior... yes, mail bombs are "inherently" irrational.

Now, narrowing the scope further:

Given that we're talking about America, in which the purpose of sending mail bombs seems to be one of three possibilities--genuine harm, false flagging, or trolling--yes, all three are certainly irrational.

And if we're dealing with an irrational person, then I'm no longer convinced by any fallacious appeals to circumstantial and/or coincidental details. Even if you end up being right--and I stress this point--your reasoning is still shit.

I really don't know where you obtained or alternately how you independently generated this conception of rationality. As HBB noted, rationality is logical processes. There is psych research asserting the primacy of goals as orienting to behavior. In this understanding, the only way we can determine whether or not mail bombs are an irrational behavior is if they do not have any logical argument towards achieving desired goals of the maker/sender.

Edit: It would appear you're arguing that "abnormal" behavior is irrational. That's a terrible definition.

 

[Dak]

Separate news, according to available statistics, LGBT persons are 200-400% over-represented in the media.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...-characters-at-record-high-on-tv-report-finds

https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.html

Unfortunately "bi" is such a vague category there's no good data on it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Since when does conformity to some biological consensus imply rationality? The irrational (M-W: not logical or reasonable) aspect is that most/all of the bombs have been complete duds with no chance of working, from what I've heard so far. The would-be bomber may have a 70 IQ and think that a pipe attached to wires and a clock will magically create an explosive, which would imply irrationality since he performed an action with no chance of it meeting his goal. If his goal was to troll the media, it seems like his plan worked well, and was rationally conceived.

Not when you consider the potential consequences, which could be achieved as easily through legal means.

Rationality isn't the same as logic. Rationality deals in the quality of outcomes, i.e. better or worse. Logic has nothing to do with better or worse. A decision can be illogical but rational.

I really don't know where you obtained or alternately how you independently generated this conception of rationality. As HBB noted, rationality is logical processes. There is psych research asserting the primacy of goals as orienting to behavior. In this understanding, the only way we can determine whether or not mail bombs are an irrational behavior is if they do not have any logical argument towards achieving desired goals of the maker/sender.

Edit: It would appear you're arguing that "abnormal" behavior is irrational. That's a terrible definition.

That's not what I'm saying.

EDIT: and besides, you argue for correspondence between normality and rationality in virtually your every waking breath.

 

[Dak]

Not when you consider the potential consequences, which could be achieved as easily through legal means.

That's not what I'm saying.

EDIT: and besides, you argue for correspondence between normality and rationality in virtually your every waking breath.

Is the goal to achieve x end and not be arrested? We don't know. We do know people tend to have a positivity bias (a discounting of possibility of poor outcomes, statistically speaking, for personal efforts) absent depression or anxiety, so that's easy to understand.

There's rationality and there's being a rational person. Most if not all people aren't rational in terms of a state of being, because we don't have the cognitive space to rely on "System 2". "System 1" is "good enough" for the most part, even though it isn't "rational". Any support I indicate for "normality" is support for the usefulness of "System 1" in the non-urbanized. That system gets all kinds of fucked up in the hyper urbanized and over-educated, because it's not evolutionarily adjusted for those contexts. Not to say it is perfect otherwise by any means, but it's often better than relying on shitty environmental learning and a bunch of maybe true stuff in a book as a guiding light.

 

[Einherjar86]

Again, as I say in my (edited) post above, being rational isn't the same as being logical.

I don't know what else to say at this point.

 

[CiG]

Seems like semantics, isn't illogical synonymous with irrational?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Again, as I say in my (edited) post above, being rational isn't the same as being logical.

I don't know what else to say at this point.

Provide a definition or source that supports this delineation.

 

[The Ozzman]

Separate news, according to available statistics, LGBT persons are 200-400% over-represented in the media.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...-characters-at-record-high-on-tv-report-finds

https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.html

Unfortunately "bi" is such a vague category there's no good data on it.

(((Gee I wonder who could be behind this)))

 

[Einherjar86]

Provide a definition or source that supports this delineation.

Aw, you and your definitions. You'll choke and die someday on your definitions.

But I can actually demonstrate this without a definition. In the interest of playing along, the following construction is logical:

a) all things written down actually happen in the real, physical world

b) it is written that giraffes can fly

c) therefore, giraffes can fly in the real world


The conclusion (c) is logical, but it isn't rational. Logic describes a relationship between the functions of a given argument. Rationality describes a person's ability to reason based on past experience. So, for example:

It hasn't been my experience that all things written actually happen in the real, physical world; so I would claim that the above construction isn't true (even though it's logical).

 

[Dak]

Rationality describes a person's ability to reason based on past experience.

This is your made up definition, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. Maybe this definition is a good definition. Maybe it isn't. Let's apply it to the mail bomb situation. How does this definition show that the mail bombs are inherently irrational?

 

[CiG]

Aw, you and your definitions. You'll choke and die someday on your definitions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Aw, you and your definitions. You'll choke and die someday on your definitions.

But I can actually demonstrate this without a definition. In the interest of playing along, the following construction is logical:

a) all things written down actually happen in the real, physical world

b) it is written that giraffes can fly

c) therefore, giraffes can fly in the real world


The conclusion (c) is logical, but it isn't rational. Logic describes a relationship between the functions of a given argument. Rationality describes a person's ability to reason based on past experience. So, for example:

It hasn't been my experience that all things written actually happen in the real, physical world; so I would claim that the above construction isn't true (even though it's logical).

All you've done is reassert your claim that logical and rational are not equivalent. If I assume the premises of your argument are true, which is generally how it's done when trying to determine the soundness of logic in an argument, then I would call your construction rational.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is your made up definition, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. Maybe this definition is a good definition. Maybe it isn't. Let's apply it to the mail bomb situation. How does this definition show that the mail bombs are inherently irrational?

It's not my made up definition, but nice try.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rationality

A person can be rational. A statement can be logical. A person can be rational whilst disagreeing with a logical statement.

In the case of the bombings, let's think of it this way:

"In my experience, many people who send bombs in the mail get arrested or worse. This being the case, it seems like a risky idea to send bombs in the mail."

While a logical construction might be:

a) bombs kill people

b) liberals should die

c) I should send bombs to liberals

All you've done is reassert your claim that logical and rational are not equivalent. If I assume the premises of your argument are true, which is generally how it's done when trying to determine the soundness of logic in an argument, then I would call your construction rational.

No, you would call the construction logical. Rationality describes a person's ability to navigate logical statements based on prior knowledge.

Arguments may be logical if they are "conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity",[1] while they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reasonand knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, you would call the construction logical. Rationality describes a person's ability to navigate logical statements based on prior knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality

You didn't state whether or not your hypothetical argument was supposed to be true. I accept the definition you've now provided, which is a different definition from "Rationality deals in the quality of outcomes, i.e. better or worse". With that established, how can the actions of the quasi-bomber be shown to be irrational? The evidence you've made in support of that claim is that human beings have "comparable empathetic responses and attitudes toward acceptable behavior", which doesn't deal with the quasi-bomber's prior knowledge at all.

 

[Einherjar86]

You didn't state whether or not your hypothetical argument was supposed to be true. I accept the definition you've now provided, which is a different definition from "Rationality deals in the quality of outcomes, i.e. better or worse". With that established, how can the actions of the quasi-bomber be shown to be irrational? The evidence you've made in support of that claim is that human beings have "comparable empathetic responses and attitudes toward acceptable behavior", which doesn't deal with the quasi-bomber's prior knowledge at all.

Well, truth and falsity have to come into play at some point, and it's not unrelated to the question of outcomes. A perfectly logical statement can be false, and someone operating under such false (yet logical) pretenses would likely invite undesirable outcomes. A rational person would be able to reflect on this and correct their behavior. An irrational, or even mentally ill, person can still be highly logical (just look at John Nash).

We have to apply our capacity for rationality to logical statements in order to ascertain their usefulness. So some hypothetical bomber might very well operate under a logic in which it makes sense to send bombs through the mail, but rationality would intercept this logic and apply to it the bomber's previous knowledge of the world. For instance, would sending bombs in the mail be socially acceptable? Are apprehended bombers usually set free? Do bomb plots through the mail usually achieve the desired outcome?

If the bomber's intention was merely to troll the media or something like that, why choose such a legally and physically dangerous operation? Why not merely email bomb threats to the CNN offices? Or why not send in fake tips about conservative witch covens in the basements of the Hamptons? Furthermore, if the bomber doesn't care about getting caught, or in fact wants to be caught, then why play cat and mouse? If the bomber needs a game of cat and mouse in order to experience some thrills, that's a sign of an imbalanced mind (although not quite mental illness, necessarily).

If it turns out the bombs are fake, the bomber has still committed crimes. If it's an attempt to secure some short-term thrills, that's not rational considering the potential long-term consequences. There's just nothing that's rationally airtight about the act itself, although the bomber's reasons for doing so might be logical.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Separate news, according to available statistics, LGBT persons are 200-400% over-represented in the media.

this still doesn't make LGBT people stop being people

 

[Dak]

It's not my made up definition, but nice try.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rationality

A person can be rational. A statement can be logical. A person can be rational whilst disagreeing with a logical statement.
In the case of the bombings, let's think of it this way:

"In my experience, many people who send bombs in the mail get arrested or worse. This being the case, it seems like a risky idea to send bombs in the mail."

While a logical construction might be:

a) bombs kill people
b) liberals should die
c) I should send bombs to liberals

No, you would call the construction logical. Rationality describes a person's ability to navigate logical statements based on prior knowledge.

The definition at cambridge refers to being reasonable, or possessing reason.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reason

Webster's definitions of reason and rationality lean on logic whereas Cambridge doesn't necessarily. Interesting difference. You're correct that a knowledge base would partially determine a person's rationality. So would their values base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality[/QUOTE]

Well, truth and falsity have to come into play at some point, and it's not unrelated to the question of outcomes. A perfectly logical statement can be false, and someone operating under such false (yet logical) pretenses would likely invite undesirable outcomes. A rational person would be able to reflect on this and correct their behavior. An irrational, or even mentally ill, person can still be highly logical (just look at John Nash).

We have to apply our capacity for rationality to logical statements in order to ascertain their usefulness. So some hypothetical bomber might very well operate under a logic in which it makes sense to send bombs through the mail, but rationality would intercept this logic and apply to it the bomber's previous knowledge of the world. For instance, would sending bombs in the mail be socially acceptable? Are apprehended bombers usually set free? Do bomb plots through the mail usually achieve the desired outcome?

If the bomber's intention was merely to troll the media or something like that, why choose such a legally and physically dangerous operation? Why not merely email bomb threats to the CNN offices? Or why not send in fake tips about conservative witch covens in the basements of the Hamptons? Furthermore, if the bomber doesn't care about getting caught, or in fact wants to be caught, then why play cat and mouse? If the bomber needs a game of cat and mouse in order to experience some thrills, that's a sign of an imbalanced mind (although not quite mental illness, necessarily).

If it turns out the bombs are fake, the bomber has still committed crimes. If it's an attempt to secure some short-term thrills, that's not rational considering the potential long-term consequences. There's just nothing that's rationally airtight about the act itself, although the bomber's reasons for doing so might be logical.

You're making a great argument as to why if you were to send bombs through the mail, this would be irrational. You cannot project your knowledge and values onto some unknown person and then deem them irrational.