I am sure that most, if not all, of us have seen an argument in the following form:
Person 1: X-person is the worst human being in the history of the universe.
Person 2: X-person is actually pretty decent.
Person 1: You (person 2) are the dumbest person in the history of the universe!
This is an example of bad argumentation. When we say that someone is being irrational or unreasonable, we are referring to how they employ argumentation. If you are not already aware, the rules of argumentation are universal.
By that I mean all communication relies on the foundation of logic. Without it (logic) language and dialogue are vacuous sounds reverberating through the air with no referent or meaning. Nobody truly believes this and that is evident when you speak or write and expect others to understand what you mean.
Without rehashing your logic classes from College, I mean only to point out that it is possible with an absolute degree of certainty to rule out claims in an argument. The Post-Modern embrace of all things vacuous is a lie and always was a lie. They didn’t really believe it enough to live consistently with it and that is shown in that they wrote books and taught classes fully expecting people to understand the jist of what they were communicating.
I recently read some of the ancient Skeptics and their counter-arguments to the Stoic beliefs of their day. I was intrigued by how they responded to the criticism of truth that was leveled at them. They argued that their statements were intended to be self-refuting thereby demolishing even the truth of their own words. At least they understood the criticism which is a far cry above the so called intellectuals of today. The current intellectual elite have all the behaviors of virulent insanity. Any argument that attempts to unseat their held beliefs is shouted down in near panic. This is exactly the irrational behavior outlined at the beginning of my blog post.
For an example of this, one need only visit the Huff-Puff or any other liberal rag and see if they state premises and conclusions or if they consist mainly in insulting their opponents. Better yet, watch the politics in Congress and the faux two-party system. No substantive argument, lots of name-calling. The arguments get muddied in the semantics, which are used to confuse the simple minded. Then, in the end, they do only what is best for themselves. This is liberalism and Post-Modernism at its finest. Hypocritical and self-serving people doing and justifying what is in their own best interest at all times.