>>12921794Yes, I gave you that label because of what you wrote. As you said, you wouldn't mind using that title. But titles don't matter as much as the fact that you are against using rationality in general, or at the very least in making "human" decisions and I'm just attaching one word to it.
I would completely disagree when you say that pure reason doesn't cover all ground that's relevant to human life. Reason exists whether someone decides to use it or not. I'll use love life again since most antirationalists tend to use that example: Imagine someone such as yourself saying "well, since love is irrational, I'll treat it as such and just say/do what comes to mind because when I over think things, it makes the situation weird and then makes me ask questions like in the pic here"
>>12921756Well, the thing is, that exact response *is* irrational. There is literally no reason whatsoever that one person should feel entitled to know someone else's love life, especially if they haven't even dated. So, a response like that (which some would consider a well thought out, reasoned question) is in fact incredibly stupid and uses the opposite of reason.
Do people experience things that they do not want to share with others? Yes
Are many of these experiences sexual? Yes
Do people usually share past experiences with strangers? No
So, the reasoned response would be to understand that someone who you do not know that well would not want to share their past with you and they would *especially* not want to share a sexual past with you.
Explain to me a situation that you believe irrationality wins in the end. Don't just give an example and claim it the victor, show the rational decisions you didn't make and then explain how you made these decisions without using reason.
inb4 tiger in the bush example (which uses reason/rationality anyway)
