If Mort Divine ruled the world

[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.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

The point being that logic and rationality aren't interchangeable. Something can be logical yet not be rational, even if they do often overlap.

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.

But if we can't gauge rationality by a general, agreed-upon set of standards for decision-making, then... what happens? Each person's rationality is different? That's not a useful concept, and it doesn't seem like something you'd agree with.

Knowledge and values are individually experienced but collectively inculcated and cultivated. We have the knowledge and values that we do because others have the same knowledge and values.

There's no base-level standard for rational or logical behavior; it's determined by culture. But generally speaking, that environment provides an individual with the necessary tools for behaving rationally. If someone lacks the ability to reflect on those standards, then that sets them outside the parameters of sound mind. If someone lacks the knowledge to reflect on those standards, that means they haven't been adequately socialized. In either case, their behavior can still be characterized as irrational, even if it's "not their fault" per se.

 

[Dak]

The point being that logic and rationality aren't interchangeable. Something can be logical yet not be rational, even if they do often overlap.

This is probably sort of a side issue, so I'm fine leaving this at this. There's not perfect overlap and it's probably not worth teasing apart the exact parameters.

But if we can't gauge rationality by a general, agreed-upon set of standards for decision-making, then... what happens? Each person's rationality is different? That's not a useful concept, and it doesn't seem like something you'd agree with.

Knowledge and values are individually experienced but collectively inculcated and cultivated. We have the knowledge and values that we do because others have the same knowledge and values.

There's no base-level standard for rational or logical behavior; it's determined by culture. But generally speaking, that environment provides an individual with the necessary tools for behaving rationally. If someone lacks the ability to reflect on those standards, then that sets them outside the parameters of sound mind. If someone lacks the knowledge to reflect on those standards, that means they haven't been adequately socialized. In either case, their behavior can still be characterized as irrational, even if it's "not their fault" per se.

This sounds good until you start applying it to all sorts of marginal cases. One might say that every marginal or marginalized actor is behaving irrationally with this approach.

Edit: Alternatively, you could have an irrational society where the socialization and education supports irrationality.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

There is no indication that the bomber was seeking social acceptance. There is no indication that the bomber thought he would be captured, or that he cared about being captured, or that he thought the consequence of being captured outweighed the benefits of sending these threats. The unibomber's bombs were highly successful at disseminating his ideology, and other bomb threats have featured prominently in the news (e.g. the Austin bomber recently).

afaik, it isn't confirmed that the bombs are real. If they aren't, and he knows they aren't, then he knows that it wasn't physically dangerous. Emailing a bomb threat isn't nearly as impactful as sending a bomb threat, anonymous email threats happen all the time and don't make headlines unless there are other circumstances (e.g. a bomb goes off and then an email is sent threatening another bomb).

EDIT: nvm, just saw that an hour ago the guy was arrested and was apparently a nutjob Trump supporter, lol.

 

[Dak]

There is no indication that the bomber was seeking social acceptance. There is no indication that the bomber thought he would be captured, or that he cared about being captured, or that he thought the consequence of being captured outweighed the benefits of sending these threats. The unibomber's bombs were highly successful at disseminating his ideology, and other bomb threats have featured prominently in the news (e.g. the Austin bomber recently).

afaik, it isn't confirmed that the bombs are real. If they aren't, and he knows they aren't, then he knows that it wasn't physically dangerous. Emailing a bomb threat isn't nearly as impactful as sending a bomb threat, anonymous email threats happen all the time and don't make headlines unless there are other circumstances (e.g. a bomb goes off and then an email is sent threatening another bomb).

EDIT: nvm, just saw that an hour ago the guy was arrested and was apparently a nutjob Trump supporter, lol.

He's also previously had an attempt of some sort with a bomb previously. One writeup said he registered as Repub in 2016, so it looks like he is specifically a Trump supporter - who makes posts about fighting crime despite a lengthy rapsheet. Lol. Still wondering why all the bomb pics show no postmarks.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Apparently the city he mailed the bombs from is infamous for its corruption and incompetency, so maybe the postal workers there just dgaf.

 

[Einherjar86]

This sounds good until you start applying it to all sorts of marginal cases. One might say that every marginal or marginalized actor is behaving irrationally with this approach.

Edit: Alternatively, you could have an irrational society where the socialization and education supports irrationality.

I'm all for targeted, strategic marginal behavior, but then all we can do is judge on a case-by-case basis. There has to be some general consensus of rationality, or of what we can expect rational actors to do (although this definition can certainly change).

I don't think you can have an irrational society, especially if rationality derives from logic and knowledge. Logic is a normative science (according to F.P. Ramsey) and knowledge is socially structured. If you have a set of--generally speaking--socially agreed-upon values, then you have a basis for judging rationality.

Clearly this isn't as cut and dry as it sounds, but it has to occur at some complex level of social organization.

But as HBB said, the dude was a crazy Trump supporter, so no more need for conjecture.

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

How do the workers have control? Through the state

 

[CiG]

Such a subtle trick they tried to pull.

 

[CiG]

People embarrass themselves via Twitter so often I'm not really sure why anybody bothers to use it anymore.