Re: the definition of rationality - I appreciate your posting that as well.
First, an apology and clarification. The barbed aspect of my comment was not aimed at you or your handling of these discussions - I should have expressed it more clearly and precisely.
My concern was with definitions 1. & 2. As for 1. the state or quality of being rational and 2. the possession of reason, both definitions are inherently linked to considerations of the manner in which facts, data and logic are used, or ‘manipulated’, so to speak, hence my references to both rationalization and sophistry.
These threads and discussions are replete with both types of errors and deceits. The rationalizers tend to err mainly through excessive emotional zeal, inaccurate information and sloppy, fallacious logic or ‘reasoning’.
The sophists, on the other hand, know exactly what they’re doing. Like the ancient Greek Sophists, they use valid facts and carefully parsed logic, but twist, mischaracterize and/or redact and misapply them in order to make a deceptive but logically persuasive and ‘reasonable’ sounding argument. These are the ‘operative’ types who post thread after thread of tightly-focused, talking-point articles and comments. After a while, the banal sameness becomes amusing, which is what prompted my comment.
In reviewing my posts in this thread, I discovered my first response to you was misdirected and should have been directed to Cincinatus’ Wife. I deliberately used “rationality” to imply the loss of the ability to reason and falling into an emotional state.