If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
Dak
mentat
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/22/psa-encourages-kids-to-steal-parents-guns-hand-ove/
I can't imagine any potential problems following this PSA recommendation.
I can't imagine any potential problems following this PSA recommendation.
Einherjar86
Active Member
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
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,726
- 113
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
mentat
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
mentat
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.
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
Active Member
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.
That's not what I'm saying.
EDIT: and besides, you argue for correspondence between normality and rationality in virtually your every waking breath.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
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
Active Member
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.
I don't know what else to say at this point.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,726
- 113
Provide a definition or source that supports this delineation.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Einherjar86
Active Member
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
mentat
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
Approximately Infinite Universe
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,726
- 113
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
Active Member
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,726
- 113
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
Active Member
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.
Last edited:
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,301
- 478
- 83
- 46
Similar threads
