I do not think it means what you think it means

Lesson from the Rally to Restore Sanity:
  • If there's old video of you calling certain sexual acts sinful, a la Christine O'Donnell, you're insane.
  • If there's old video of you calling for the murder of a novelist, a la Cat Stevens, you're a poster child for sanity.

Comments:

"If so, then putting down Christine O'Donnell for her beliefs - which, as the reasoning would go, she can't help having - would be as mean and cruel as putting someone down for their race or sexual orientation (which, per liberal reasoning, are *both* predetermined and immutable traits)."

Lee, who are you to put down mean and cruel people! They can't help it. Stop judging others.
Sad, but not as inconceivable as we think it should be.
Etymologically speaking
rational would seem to find it's roots in ratios and geometry and likewise seem to wander into the flaky and moveable but not being sure if you are being facetious or just trying to spool up Gina, I will throw in this:

When I am explaining the three distinctives of the Christian worldview as rational, internally consistent and coherent I work hard to explain that rational means "able to withstand rigorous analysis using the laws of common logic and reason".

That seems to eliminate a considerable amount of talk because of the rigoruos part.

I do like the popping of the baloon with the deterministic argument for Christines belief. Doggone cake that won't exist and be eaten too.
I wrote: "Aww, Kim, just think - if they call us insane, it means they don't want to discuss the issue with us."

I meant to add "This saves us the effort of saying things that they wouldn't listen to even if they thought we were sane."

The thread has piqued my curiosity to investigate the background around the words "sane" (Latin for "healthy") and "rational" (obviously referring to ratios, proportions and other geometric stuff). Seems like there's no absolute implied by those terms; it's a relative, subjective judgement. Rational and irrational *numbers* have a theory behind them. Apparently rational and irrational *people* do not - although I'm fascinated by the studies that suggest it's all genetics. If so, then putting down Christine O'Donnell for her beliefs - which, as the reasoning would go, she can't help having - would be as mean and cruel as putting someone down for their race or sexual orientation (which, per liberal reasoning, are *both* predetermined and immutable traits). I.e., political sniping would be in the same hateful class of actions as gay bullying, and her critics would be responsible for any harm that came to her or that she did to herself. (Do we Pointificators already have a term for thread-weaving?)
Aww, Kim, just think - if they call us insane, it means they don't want to discuss the issue with us.

And as the Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam transcript shows, trying to have a rational discussion with someone not committed to rationality can be highly entertaining - even if it is futile.

I'm curious, though, how it unites the country to declare some positions to be outside the bounds of rational discourse...
Tiresome, isn't it.




BreakPoint Blog