But you asserted that it couldn't be said to be irrational. if there are no reasons, then by definition a belief is indeed irrational.
> You
>just accpet them and the normative systems in which they are based or
>you do not.
No I don't. I've explained the rational basis for compassion over and over again. I have given reasons, it is not a dogmatic belief that you are unable to challenge rationally. Your assertion is just that, an irrational dogmatic assertion that you then went on to irrationally claim was not irrational.
> It is you who insist that your reason is bigger than my
>reason when it comes to accepting normative systems. The question that
>you evaded was intented to point out that the big reason you claim is,
>in fact, based on the lack of information.
Yes I know, you are trying to infer that there is no more commonality of interest between human beings than there is between all mammals, or indeed all animals. I accept that I must, if pressed, substantiate my premise that all human beings have something in common which other species lack. It irritates me to have to make such an obvious case, that is all. Especially when you refuse to substantiate your assertions with any rational argument and even claim that they are not irrational.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas