"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:49F### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 1-5-2009 20:57, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> >> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

> >>>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
> >>>         You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments?
Godwins Law, etc?
> >>>         I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points
out the
> >>> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
> >>> has no value when it comes to the argument.
> >>   I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was
meaningless
> >> and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid
opinion,
> >> which makes a point.
> >
> > The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> > assumptions that are not commonly shared.

> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
>
> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.

I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards) the
self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or
"(voluntarily) voting in a general election is irrational". It's neither
meant as a moral judgement, nor a redundant and/or rude declaration of the
falsity of the previous poster's views.

Post a reply to this message