Is it irrational to hate President Trump?

ZeusAres42

"In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. " - Carl Sagan

I think this quote still stands true even today.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee This is informed consent.

Dee said:

@Plaffelvohfen  


**** "Treat others how you want to be treated" this individual would go around hurting people. 

.......So you don’t ask people first if they would like to be treated this way as in being the you are you assume this means you approach complete strangers and treat them this way ........you’re a simpleton .....get it?

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought His policies are all over the map though...

He just constantly flip flops on all issues.

https://www.presidentflipflops.com/

Dee

@YeshuaBought

*****  Ah the racist stalker is back accusing me of bipolar .....irony 

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

*****This is informed consent 


It actually the golden rule that is presuming one asks one do they consent to sexual act before enacting it ......You do that do you?

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I think I broke you... You might want to take a break or something...

Informed consent is not just sexual, it applies to all components of human interaction.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

*****  I think I broke you... You might want to take a break or something...

Ha, Ha says the guy who admitted he’s irrational as he said Trump was a psychopath and now he’s sulking 

****Informed consent is not just sexual, it applies to all components of human interaction.

Informed consent is part of any moral code  you clot .Where did I say it was just sexual ?

Go put your head in the fridge and calm the f—k down .......Who knows P might give you 2 “thumbs up “ 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee ;

Dee said:

@Happy_Killbot

*****  I think I broke you... You might want to take a break or something...

Ha, Ha says the guy who admitted he’s irrational as he said Trump was a psychopath and now he’s sulking 

****Informed consent is not just sexual, it applies to all components of human interaction.

Informed consent is part of any moral code  you clot .Where did I say it was just sexual ?

Go put your head in the fridge and calm the f—k down .......Who knows P might give you 2 “thumbs up “ 

Oh man.. I really did break you.

https://phys.org/news/2016-08-presidential-candidates-psychopaths-good.html

You mentioned sexual in your comment before this one that was... anything but coherent.

Look, at this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree because this discussion went off the rails a long time ago.

F*** Trump and everything he stands for. Not because it is rational to do so, but because I decided to oppose his presidency.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@Happy_Killbot

*****  I think I broke you... You might want to take a break or something...

Ha, Ha says the guy who admitted he’s irrational as he said Trump was a psychopath and now he’s sulking 

****Informed consent is not just sexual, it applies to all components of human interaction.

Informed consent is part of any moral code  you clot .Where did I say it was just sexual ?

Go put your head in the fridge and calm the f—k down .......Who knows P might give you 2 “thumbs up “ 

@Dee You said to me once the following words: "your post was excellent and your honesty is totally refreshing and unique when it comes to such sites where people rarely admit they may have been in error. keep up the good work ."

By being honest and/or admitting where you may be in error is the only logical way you can recover and/or advance in argumentation. But in order to do that you need to also seriously consider if you have been error. And if you think you are not in error then you stand firm. But you stand firm in a calm and reasonable way. What you don't do is get angry and start insulting the other person.

I remember watching a video once with Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig, and yes, Hitchens made a mistake at some point. But when William Lane Craig called him out on it his response was "Ok, that was a bit clumsy on my part." And then he soon recovered. It wasn't one of his best debates mind you but this is just an example of good argumentation, at least from my point of view anyway.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Fair points , I wonder have you said the same to my opponents? 

At this stage the whole site may as well have ago , I reposted my original comment from the start of this thread as in it is perfectly rational for me to intensely dislike Trump going on what I know of this man I'm told this is irrational by a guy who claimed Trump was also a psychopath.

I defend my position and did not resort to insult until K launched into a personal attack and he doesn't like it when he gets it back.

Tell you what go to the beginning of the thread and read both sides and tell me how I'm in error , I've asked several to do so but the mob mentality has deemed such a no , no all because of sheer intellectual cowardice 

MayCaesar

Could you guys all just please mature up and stop this exchange? It is not interesting to read 4 pages of people hurling insults at each other, twisting each other's words and discussing everything but the topic.

Nobody has to win the debate, especially when the debate has deteriorated to such an unsalvageable state. It is okay to withdraw and let the less mature opponent have their victory dance.

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

At this stage the whole site may as well have ago , I reposted my original comment from the start of this thread as in it is perfectly rational for me to intensely dislike Trump going on what I know of this man I'm told this is irrational by a guy who claimed Trump was also a psychopath.

I agree with you that it can make sense to hate Trump just like it makes sense to love him... Would you agree with that?

I defend my position and did not resort to insult until K launched into a personal attack and he doesn't like it when he gets it back.

It started to go sour when you kept repeating that you "demonstrated" that emotions are in themselves rational... I'm sorry but you did not.

Just to quote the first time "You may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions."

The only "demonstration" you made was to quote Greenspan from 2002, an excerpt from a Huffpost article and the story of Elliot the patient of Damasio. But his work so far (Somatic Marker Hypothesis), although very interesting indeed, is just a proposition with flaws, which may yet be addressed mind you, but nothing has been "demonstrated" yet... The insistence (and the condescending tone) about having demonstrated that it is impossible to be rational without being emotional when it clearly hasn't been, was starting to be annoying... And when this was mentioned (that it was annoying), you started with the ad hominem...

That's just the sad state of things...

Dee

@Pllaffelvohen

•••••••I agree with you that it can make sense to hate Trump just like it makes sense to love him... Would you agree with that?

If one is presented with overwhelming evidence that Trump is a creep it's perfectly rational to detest him , those that love him are not convinced by evidence of such because they are totally blinded by their adherence to the party and the party line .

An example would be love of Hitler which collectively a nation adhered to  and indeed Hitler won time magazines person of the year in 1932 so was internationally liked , the problem with the German people was they believed the and the media machine also Hitler was a gifted and compelling orator , how can a man that was loved by a nation be now loathed by that same nation?

If it makes sense to love him why then do you loathe him, were you convinced by the evidence?

Your question is actually interesting as in how can we know what is true

*****It started to go sour when you kept repeating that you "demonstrated" that emotions are in themselves rational... I'm sorry but you did not.

Yet I have several articles to demonstrate otherwise which you and K ruled as " appeals to authority " and actually I said emotions and reason work in tandem .

I gave an example of instantaneous flight from a charging Rhino as an emotion of fear which induces sudden flight 

*****The only "demonstration" you made was to quote Greenspan from 2002,

True , all because you and K called any supporting evidence " appeal to authority" .

I have further supporting evidence.

****although very interesting indeed, is just a proposition with flaws, which may yet be addressed mind you, but nothing has been "demonstrated" yet...

Actually what was demonstrated was an individual who actually couldn’t come to a decision without overthinking eveything because he lacked emotions , do you disagree with that?

***The insistence (and the condescending tone) about having demonstrated that it is impossible to be rational without being emotional when it clearly hasn't been, was starting to be annoying...

.Incidentally there is no way to function logically within a complex society without emotion. People who have issues with emotion do not tend to function well in society. Whether those issues are too much emotion or too little, they tend to have difficulty, this is an established medical fact denial of such is silly , why not research the topic? 

Also your friend K insisted that Wiki was a totally unreliable source of information , his words not mine.

But it was clearly demonstrated in this particular case do you deny this?

****And when this was mentioned (that it was annoying), you started with the ad hominem...

Here is where you get disingenuous ,it wasn’t “mentioned” K launched into a vicious attack and indeed said he spoke for others on the site who agreed with his attack which I presume means you also , this is the cowardice I speak of.

I always thought you were a pretty fair guy but clearly that is not the case K launched the first ad hominem and you turn that into “ when he mentioned” , you dare not like others criticise K on such , shame on you , you call me out on my reaction which I accept but turn K’s ad hominien into “when he mentioned”. If you agree with the guy that’s fine but don’t excuse bad behaviour in one and condemn another ,you know I’m right on this but I don’t expect you to accept it and that’s your choice.

****That's just the sad state of things...

Yes the sad state of things remains that I presented evidence to support my claims you and k don’t like it ( I have more) so instead of debating and proving it wrong instead you go on a collective witch hunt , so what we are left with is you think I should accept your subjective opinion on the matter I don’t as I find neither of your arguments persuasive in the least , now you may move on or not , but as I suspect you’s won’t,  so be it

Dee

@MayCaesar

You’re right , the debate was pretty interesting to a point but it went off on far too many tangents as we all did. Your intervention is timely and welcome 

Dee

@ZeusAres42


***** You said to me once the following words: "your post was excellent and your honesty is totally refreshing and unique when it comes to such sites where people rarely admit they may have been in error. keep up the good work ." 

I said that yes 

****By being honest and/or admitting where you may be in error is the only logical way you can recover and/or advance in argumentation. 

Did you mention this fact to my opponents also? I made an error last week responding to you I immediately offered an apology, is that right?

In my opening piece I stated an intense dislike of Trump is rational going on the information I have , I was told intense dislike  was “irrational” which is absolute nonsense. 

*****But in order to do that you need to also seriously consider if you have been error. And if you think you are not in error then you stand firm. 

Which is what I’m doing 

****But you stand firm in a calm and reasonable way. What you don't do is get angry and start insulting the other person. 

I’m telling you and others yet again the first smear was made against me and I retaliated , K made a very insulting comment and claimed he was speaking also for others on site which is grossly unfair ....., Here you go “I'm starting to see why some people think you are an annoying 14 year old” k’s words and first blood to him supported by his followers of course 

. I asked you to read the thread and prove me wrong regards this and I’ve asked others but not one person will dare admit K fired off the first insult , this is grossly unfair to say the least.

I’ve actually enjoyed exchanges with P and K in the past , I merely asked K a question in a courteous manner and everyone rushes to his defence 

****I remember watching a video once with Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig, and yes, Hitchens made a mistake at some point. But when William Lane Craig called him out on it his response was "Ok, that was a bit clumsy on my part." And then he soon recovered. It wasn't one of his best debates mind you but this is just an example of good argumentation, at least from my point of view anyway. 

I’ve seen that pity it wasn’t the case here 

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

Before the left gets their feathers in a ruffle, I'm a centrist. I just want to say it is irrational to either worship, or hate, President Trump. Hate will destroy you, and political extremism will destroy America. I agree with the left on some things, and Trump on others. 

It is irrational to hate any President if you cannot provide testimony as the direction to solid evidence a man is President, evidence other then a group of people say so. It becomes irrational due to the basic knowledge, fact of legal precedent set by the creation of the First president before a united state of people singles out the opportunity which creates all men equal by their creator.

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

K said that he understood how some people might come to that conclusion and frankly, at some point later on, I did too... If that triggers you that much, those people might be right after all...

"I have further supporting evidence." ... Then show it, link us to actual studies or something with hard scientific content... All you did was stating, not demonstrating anything, and still haven't... From all the research I did, I can only come to the conclusion that the jury is still out...

You say you thought I was a fair guy, why? Because we agree on a lot of issues?? That doesn't shield anyone from warranted criticism...

Happy_Killbot

@Dee @ZeusAres42 @Plaffelvohfen

Well then here is my side of the story:

While I may be to blame for dropping the first- ad-hominem, I was not the first to abandon civil discourse, as prior to this multiple straw men and simple unwillingness to try and understand my argument were never truly made. After multiple instances of "I don't understand what you are saying", and "why would you think this?" When I have clearly stated that "This is what I am saying" and "I don't think that" you continue to repeat this rhetoric, it's get very annoying very fast, besides being condescending and intellectually lazy.

In particular, you said:

“You may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions.”

I politely responded:

I never said emotions stand in opposition of relevant thought, all I'm saying is they are mutually exclusive.

Shortly after you said:

I’ve already stated .......You may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions.

To which I reiterated:

No, I didn't say that. Emotions not being rational does not mean they are opposed, The same way donkeys are not based on logic therefore are not rational. The two are mutually exclusive, meaning you can have one without the other, or having one doesn't guarantee having the other, or it is possible to have neither.

In the very next statement you reply with a copy-paste of above:

I’ve already stated .......You may believe emotions stand in opposition to rational thought, but scientific evidence suggests the opposite is true. It is impossible to be rational without being emotional. While emotions can overwhelm rationality, rationality cannot exist without emotions.

And I retort:

The way you are interpenetrating that statement is still not what I said. 

To me, these seem to indicate that you have no interest in learning and understanding my point of view. It is as if you expect me to attack your points of view, which the majority of I don't disagree with, only the single detail which is the ultimate question of this thread. To make matters worse, you admit openly that you don't understand my reasons and logic, even after I and others have made so many attempts describing the same thing, which for the sake of discussion I will dub "does x = 7 because I feel so?" problem.

“I honestly don’t get what you’re saying or trying to prove anymore but you seem to be trying to disprove arguments I haven’t made let’s cut to the chase you said ..........Emotions are not rational because they have no logical foundation.”

Remember, I was the first mover here, in that I made a single sentence statement which many people agreed with, albeit with some semantic differences. It is my opinion, that these semantic differences may have played a role in the lack of understanding and comprehension, and it is on me for failing to address them earlier, in particular the way that rational thought which is based on an assumption can only be as good as the truth in that assumption.

Throughout the rest of this dumpster fire, I never felt that my base claim was ever really attacked or for that matter addressed, and the longer it went on the worse it got, until we were all openly engaged in continuous ad-hominem attacks and completely incoherent discourse. 

Even in telling your story here there are many instances where it seems like you want us to attack your views, and seem surprised where we are all on the defense of our own. The problem with this is that I don't disagree with most of what you provided, to sum up a few:

• Emotions and logic are intimately connected in human thought.
• Donald Trump is rude and dishonest, and a failure as a president.
• Emotions have pragmatic value in terms of survival and social unity.
• The decision making components of the human brain communicate with the emotional centers, severing this connection produces a person who has difficulty making decisions.
• Emotions have played a powerful role in geopolitics and global conflict.
• AI thought is nothing like human thinking, to the point it is debatable if it is thought at all.

While all of these points are perfectly valid, none of them exclude the possibility or disprove the claim I have been making to the "does x = 7 because I feel so?" problem.

I think that we have just been talking past each other for the last 4 1/2 pages of argument, and I completely agree that there is no reason to further continue this discussion.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

Believe it or not I enjoyed the conversation up to a point and I agree we are talking past each other , maybe face to face this would be resolved because differences would be sorted out quickly and effectively , I agree there is no reason to continue you may have the last word if you wish

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

***** K said that he understood how some people might come to that conclusion and frankly, at some point later on, I did too... If that triggers you that much, those people might be right after all...

Actually it “doesn’t” trigger me I was merely pointing out your duplicity in failing to call it an Ad Hominien 

****. Then show it, link us to actual studies or something with hard scientific content...

I already have.

Why would I? You have presented zilch to support your position not one study , link or quote 

*****All you did was stating, not demonstrating anything, and still haven't... From all the research I did, I can only come to the conclusion that the jury is still out...

Really , yet you’ve demonstrated nothing to support your position and still haven’t?

*****You say you thought I was a fair guy, why? 

Actually you’re right why would I think that? 

****Because we agree on a lot of issues?? 

Do we? But your right I was mistaken for thinking you fair

*****That doesn't shield anyone from warranted criticism...

Or unwarranted attacks 

You may have the last words if you wish or preferably just move on 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee All I have to say after this, is F*** Donald Trump. May he be remembered as the worst president in US history, and never be forgotten as a blemish on liberalism, a mockery of western values, a betrayal of the trust between parties, and an insufferable example of the human race.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

I agree wholeheartedly and I’m still truly astonished that this clown ever became president of a great nation, I hope to f—k he doesn’t make a second term that would be a really hard medicine to take  for decent Americans 

MayCaesar

I, for one, hope that people do not become so blinded with sensationalism that makes them blow out of proportion everything happening at the moment, and maintain a historical perspective. Some people in Russia nowadays consider Putin to be the worst leader in the history of the country... as if a series of brutal communist leaders leading to dozens millions of corpses never occurred, or Ivan the Terrible, or Peter the Great. I hope Americans are better than this.

If at some point the majority of Americans start agreeing that Trump's actions are worse than, say, construction of internment camps for Japanese people, or lobbying the interests of slavers, or genociding the indigenous population... Then this country will be in a huge trouble, opening wide the door towards human right abuses unprecedented in the modern Western world.

Luckily, I do not think this will happen. Just like with every other president, sensationalism will end soon once this guy has left the office, and the next president will be seen as the worst in the US history, regardless of who he/she is. This is how the political process in democracies works: the present is always seen as the worst, regardless of what it is.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I don't know if you are an avid reader or not, but you should really read that book I have mentioned before, "A warning by anonymous" I don't think sensationalism and being the worst today are the reality, I now strongly believe that he will be remembered poorly.

For example, there is the whole Russian collusion thing, I am now convinced that Trump didn't collude with Russia, but rather was a lucky benefactor.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

History is hard to predict. Woodrow Wilson was arguably the worst president in the history of the US from the economical perspective, responsible for a very large list of economical and social problems existing to this day - yet history remembers him fairly well, most likely because of the outcome of the First World War. Trump has accomplished something similar - he brokered the peace between the two Koreas that seemed impossible for the last ~65 years, despite countless efforts of multiple South Korean and US presidents to broker it - and this alone can already add a bright tone to his description in the history books of the future, regardless of how some of his controversial statements and policies are going to be judged.

History also remembers warmly some awful tyrants, such as Alexander the Great, Oliver Cromwell or Peter the Great. There really is no recipe to be remembered poorly or warmly by historians and the general population, and a lot depends on minor unpredictable factors. For example, it is almost certain that, had Soviet Union sided with Nazi Germany in the war all the way through (of which there was a very high chance at the time), nowadays calling people "Stalin" on the Internet in order to attack them would be much more common, than calling them "Hitler".

How Trump will be remembered is unknown, but that he will be seen as the worst president in the US history is highly unlikely, especially considering the competition. Think also about what is likely to be seen as a bigger deal, say, in the year 2100: the fact that Trump has brokered peace between Koreas and pulled a number (even if not that large) of soldiers out of the Middle East, or the impeachment or "fake news" things? People remember things impacting the world as a whole well, and do not remember specific political details that much.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar The North Korean peace deal will fall apart the moment he gets out of office, because it is the game that they play, they make threats to get what they want. Trump just took the bait.

I would want him to be the worst in US history, because that would imply that all future presidents will be better. The book I mentioned, which is an inside look at the white house from the perspective of a white house top official, looks incredibly bleak. What has been covered in the media is arguably being very lenient on him, but it is hard to say because most of the details are still not in the public.

Dee

@MayCaesar

Interesting piece , you I believe are Russian if I’m wrong on this apologies , I just wanted to ask how do you view Stalin as in a tyrant or a great leader? I read recently that Stalins popularity rating is fairly high in Russia mainly because of his role in world war 2 

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Maybe yes, maybe not. In any case, this is farther than anyone has come regarding brokering the peace between the Koreas, and it is unlikely that history will forget it.

"Better" and "worse" are subjective categories. Given the current pool of the candidates, almost every possible replacement for Trump seems like a major downgrade to me - but many people have a different opinion. In any case, I would prefer the actual villains to be at the bottom of the historical rankings, rather than just awkward and incompetent folks - but, again, I have no say in how history portraits prominent individuals. I do know that political details usually get lost in the process, and people mostly remember the major events standing out of the ordinary, though.


@Dee ;

Well, when it comes to me, I consider Stalin to be the third worst nation leader to ever walk this planet, after Pol Pot and Mao (and followed by Lenin and Hitler). But many Russian dissidents, caught in the heat of the moment, consider Putin to be the worst ruler in the Russian history. Now, Putin definitely is not something to celebrate - but to see him as being worse than Stalin, Lenin, Peter or Ivan IV is impossible virtually from any rational standpoint.

Stalin is quite popular in Russia, mostly, I would say, because of the Russian cultural tendency to respect strongmen, as well as due to the recent historical revisionism initiated by Putin, who himself is quite nostalgic for Soviet Union. But mostly, I would say, Russians view Stalin about the same way as Chinese view Mao: he had his good sides, but his bad sides were bad enough to not wish for anyone like him ever again.

Dee

@MayCaesar

Thats fascinating , it’s remarkable the respect of “strong men “ as in its almost like a protector father figure. You’re spot on Putin could never be viewed in the same light. I wonder how Trump will be seen in 50 years time?

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar You should really read the book...

MayCaesar

@Dee

My guess is Trump will generally be viewed as a fairly unremarkable president, same as someone like Gerard Ford, about which nobody seems to remember anything, other than the fact that he had the same last name as the founder of the Ford automobile company. But, again, it is hard to predict these things.

Putin though, I am almost certain, will not be treated well by the history books. The secret to remaining popular long after one's death as a dictator seems to be to create a system that will live after one's death, like the one Stalin or Kim Il Sung created. Putin's power, on the other hand, seems to rest purely on his personality cult and a momentary appeal to the nationalist branch of the Russian population. Once he is gone, his successor will likely rapidly reform the system and start talking about how he/she inherited Putin's mess (similar to how Luzhkov, once a very popular mayor of Moscow, quickly became the scapegoat for all problems in Moscow after he did not share something with Putin and was replaced), and the public opinion will quickly change. Decades later, I doubt anyone will remember Putin positively, with the exception of a small minority of nationalists remembering his expansionist activities.

Again though, these things are highly unpredictable. Perhaps Putin and Trump will be seen as the best leaders in the history of mankind 1,000 years from now - highly unlikely, but not completely impossible. After all, a simple carpenter from a province in Rome managed to become the most popular man in the history of the planet, by a product of chance.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@Dee

My guess is Trump will generally be viewed as a fairly unremarkable president, same as someone like Gerard Ford, about which nobody seems to remember anything, other than the fact that he had the same last name as the founder of the Ford automobile company. But, again, it is hard to predict these things.

Putin though, I am almost certain, will not be treated well by the history books. The secret to remaining popular long after one's death as a dictator seems to be to create a system that will live after one's death, like the one Stalin or Kim Il Sung created. Putin's power, on the other hand, seems to rest purely on his personality cult and a momentary appeal to the nationalist branch of the Russian population. Once he is gone, his successor will likely rapidly reform the system and start talking about how he/she inherited Putin's mess (similar to how Luzhkov, once a very popular mayor of Moscow, quickly became the scapegoat for all problems in Moscow after he did not share something with Putin and was replaced), and the public opinion will quickly change. Decades later, I doubt anyone will remember Putin positively, with the exception of a small minority of nationalists remembering his expansionist activities.

Again though, these things are highly unpredictable. Perhaps Putin and Trump will be seen as the best leaders in the history of mankind 1,000 years from now - highly unlikely, but not completely impossible. After all, a simple carpenter from a province in Rome managed to become the most popular man in the history of the planet, by a product of chance.

@MayCaesar Be careful about talking about Putin. One or more of the last people to do that ended up disappearing mysteriously. Joke btw.

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

Well, I am merely giving him advice. If he wants to be portrayed well in history books, he will have to ramp up his game. 

Dee

@MayCaesar

Yes I think you’re right regards Trump and how he will be perceived historically and also about  Putin,  there’s something very chilling about Putin he comes across to me as a man totally devoid of feelings for others.

I read an interesting piece in the Guardian which claims Russians are still attempting to recover from the trauma of the Stalin era and that the movie about Stalin ( I liked it some hated it ) was banned ...... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/07/russia-stalin-putin-guilt-victims

ZeusAres42

@Happy_Killbot

Now, the dust has seemed to settle I would like to return a response to this:

Happy_Killbot said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Happy_Killbot

Happy_Killbot said:

@MayCaesar I would still argue that emotion and rationality are mutually exclusive. Just because you are doing something rational or thinking rationally, does not automatically mean that what you are doing is rational.

Firstly, by stating that emotion and rationality are not mutually exclusive what exactly do you mean by that? For example, do you mean that emotion and rationality cannot occur at the same time? As for the bit highlighted in bold did you mean to write that and if so what you do you mean that just by doing something rationally does not mean you're doing something rationally? 

What I mean when I say emotion and reason are mutually exclusive is that the two are completely independent and can have nothing to do with each other, because if you have a string of thoughts that starts from an emotion I.e. "I hate trump" then any logical thought following isn't really rational, it's ration's cousin who has herpes: rationalization. As for that highlighted part, what I meant to write was "Just because you are doing something rational or thinking rationally does no automatically mean that what you are doing is for rational reasons."

Since reason is to do with cognition and since emotion influences cognition and vice versa then I don't think it's accurate to say they work independently of one another. And when I took of emotion I do not mean "emotional." And yes, cognitive processes are reasoning processes.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can help you make sense of overwhelming problems by breaking them down into smaller parts.

In CBT, problems are broken down into 5 main areas:

• situations
• thoughts
• emotions
• physical feelings
• actions

CBT is based on the concept of these 5 areas being interconnected and affecting each other. For example, your thoughts about a certain situation can often affect how you feel both physically and emotionally, as well as how you act in response.

(https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt/how-it-works/)

With all that being said I think I get what you mean when you talk it not being rational to hate trump. I am going to try and simplify what you're saying here and this is also my position in relation to Trump.

So, as an outsider, we can reason as to why another person hates trump based on what they read or hear about. And if a person hears and reads things that outrage them they will likely not think very clearly as heightened emotions clearly lead one to think and/or act irrationally as well as unreasonably and illogically. However, that other person is not coming to conclusions based on good logic; they are coming to them based on emotion which of course is not logical or good reasoning. And then when a person starts coming up with stuff about how it's okay to hate Trump because their emotions dictate it so then that is what I would call being illogical, albeit being illogical is still reason; there is still a cognitive process going on; it's just not very good reasoning. I will come back to the thing about rationalization later on here as it is mentioned again somewhere.

In the case of evolved traits, I have actually made the point above that this does not guarantee rational thinking, rather it is a shortcut for survival.

There really isn't anything rational about wanting anything in particular, including survival. At the bottom of every action we take, there is no logic or rationality, it just is and there is nothing that guarantees that it should be a certain way, horrifying as that is, it is reality.

I would say what you're talking about here is reason; not rationality as I've already stated that there is a difference between the two. Thus leads us to ponder the question is there any reason for us wanting to commit any action? Of course, there is, even if that reason is based on pure emotion alone; it's still a reason for that action.

Consider if you peel back the layers one by one, @Dee likes to use the example of a rhino charging, so I will stick with that.

A:  rhino was charging, so I got out of the way.
Q: what made you get out of the way?
A: Fear did.
Q: Why were you afraid?
A: The rhino could have killed me.
Q: Why don't you want to die?
A: Because I can't do anything after that.
Q: Why does it matter that you should be able to do things?
A: I just want to, okay!

At some point you reach a singularity in this type of reasoning, either an assumption or unfounded principal. What this means is that all of what we call "reason" when it is sourced from emotions isn't reason, its rationalizations. Especially in the case of the rhino, you don't go through this logical process ever time your life is in danger, you just react. It isn't rational, it's hard-programmed survival instinct.

From this perspective, you can get whatever conclusions you want and have them be perfectly rational, because they are not based on fundamental truths, but rather subjective assumptions, many of which are evolved traits.

Firstly, when you are thinking about something in retrospect you are using a reasoning process. Now, whatever one thinks about another's reasoning process is irrelevant to the fact that a reasoning process is going on. 

Of course, during the time you are faced with a perceived threat you don't go through an analytical process like Sherlock Holmes did in one of those movies. However, about evolution and survival traits if the goal is to survive and have their reasons for wanting to survive then the action of avoiding a perceived threat is a rational act as it's in accordance with those survival goals and the person's own reasons. It doesn't matter if it' instinctive. All this means is that instinct precedes those survival goals, and those survival goals, in turn, precede rational acts with are in accordance with those survival goals. 

Putting these two together for brevity. When we think about why we did something in retrospect, I would say that 999/1000 times it is rationalization,

Firstly, since rationalization is to do with making justifications (excuses) for one's behavior and feelings this also entails that one would feel on a deeper level somewhat uncomfortable with their behavior and feelings in order for them to make excuses for them. And retrospection is basically about looking back and making sense of past events (reasoning). Therefore, if we accept that if people are making rationalizations 999/1000 of the time then we also have to accept that 999/1000 of time everyone is in retrospection they are making rationalizations because of a psychological defense mechanism which of course we cannot conclude is the truth.  I mean we can believe this is the truth and have our own subjective reasons for doing so but we cannot logically deduce that this is the case. I also find it highly unlikely that more than seven billion people are going into a psychological defense mechanism 999/1000 of the time when they are reasoning about past events and reasoning about past events is something humans do quite often.

rationalization

n. an ego defense in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior that is motivated by unconscious instinctual impulses. In psychoanalytic theory, such behavior is considered to be a defense mechanism. Examples are “Doesn’t everybody cheat?” or “You have to spank children to toughen them up.” Rationalizations are used to defend against feelings of guilt, maintain self-respect, and protect oneself from criticism. In psychotherapy, rationalization is considered counterproductive to deep exploration and confrontation of the client’s thoughts and feelings and their effect on behavior. —rationalize vb.

(American Psychological Association - https://dictionary.apa.org/rationalization)

Quite similar to cognitive dissonance I think. This is a type of reasoning; it's just very bad reasoning. I think what we need to be careful of here when making references to the terms reason, rationality and logic is that it's not all black and white; they don't all mean the same thing under one umbrella; they mean different things in different contexts. I think what you are referencing when you talk about reason is a more formal type such as either inductive or deductive reasoning which of course is something that most of us don't generally engage in all the time.

and the fact that our decisions are largely unconscious suggests this is true, and everything including our reasoning ability is deterministic.

I do not know if there is any validity or truth to this claim. But what I do know is that I consciously decide not to look it up right now;). Anyway, this kind of stuff is probably left for another debate for another day.

When we rationalize, we are basically just making up any answer we want, it doesn't have to be valid or even make sense.

This is true.

Emotions play a pragmatic function, specifically enabling our survival. But the assumption that this survival is based on is not some universal truth, but a subjective one.

I agree there is a big difference between saying emotions help to enable our survival and saying that survival is based on emotion.

In the case of hating Trump, it is not a rational truth that you should hate him, and any reasons anyone provides are ad-hoc rationalizations rather than reasons.

I would say that rationalizations are synonymous with making reasons. They may not necessarily be very good reasons or good logic but they're still reasons nonetheless. There is still a cognitive process going on here.

This is why politics is such a swamp as you call it, rational thinking is practically non-existent and emotions run wild.

This, the only logical answer I can give is I don't know as I do not know all of politics, politicians, all of their rational thinking process and what emotions they're all experiencing, and so forth.

The assumption that emotions are somehow rational just dumps a ton of gas on that dumpster fire.

I say emotions by themselves are neither rational or irrational; they are arational. However, emotions can influence rationality, reason or to be more technical they can influence cognition.

Rationalizations have been referred to as the biggest hurtle for moral progress. Rationalization is when you justify your actions to yourself, they are the little lies we all tell ourselves to excuse us from our own actions. For example: "The homework was too hard, that's why I didn't do it" or "That person I killed was bad, they deserved to die" In the case of Trump hate: "I hate Trump, because he is bad for the country" Not rational thinking.

The modern political atmosphere is quite the dumpster fire in comparison to other points in US history, and I think part of the problem is people assume that there emotion based conclusions are rational, and that when people need to realize this in order for real progress to be made. As Tim Urban puts it in his blog post entitled "political Disney world"

" Issues played up in the media are like plotlines in the Disney movie narrative, which you’ll hear constant emotional discussion about, while other issues are like plotlines that didn’t make it into the movie’s final cut—and in PDW, you won’t hear people talking about them at all."
https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/12/political-disney-world.html

I suppose I would agree that emotions are arational, although I see this as a semantic difference as "arational" would be neither rational nor irrational, but I would still use the word irrational because I think of irrationality as zero and not a negative.

So, in other words, we are both still in agreement that emotions can neither be rational or irrational. I see irrationality as being the opposite of rationality, and therefore, it's just as absurd to say that emotions are irrational as it is to say they're rational. In fact, saying that emotions in and of themselves are either rational or irrational is like saying the sun, moon, art, books, etc are either rational or irrational, at least from my view anyway.

References and/or Further reading resources

• CBT - How it works - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt/how-it-works/
• Why cognitive Behavioral Therapy is currently the Golden Standard of Psychotherapy - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5797481/
• Emotion, Decision making, and the Orbitofrontal cortex - https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599
• Psychology: A Concise introduction - https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Concise-Introduction-Richard-Griggs/dp/1429261552
• Logic: Leibniz's
• Logical Consequence
  • Deductive-Theoretic Conceptions
  • Model-Theoretic Conceptions
• Modal
• Paradoxes of Propositional - 
• 50 great myths of popular psychology - https://www.amazon.com/Great-Myths-Popular-Psychology-Misconceptions/dp/1405131128