Rationality is the mind aligned properly upon objective reality. Could a drunk driving down the road accidentally stay in the right lane? Safe driving is no accident. The difference between safe driving and drunk driving is rationality.

An example of irrationality is to accuse without evidence. It's like seeing an enemy on the sidewalk and driving over him. There is no highway patrol for communication; so irrationality is often viewed as a convenience.

Another example of irrationality is superficiality. It is like making wings with wax and feathers and jumping off a cliff to fly. The engineering needs to be more exact.

Subjectivity is another form of irrationality. It is like a king who orders his servants to turn lead into gold. I can't be done.

A more insidious form of irrationality is to misrepresent. By pretending that the purpose is something other than intended, the subject can be railroaded into irrelevancies, trivia and contradictions.

Why not? If the best defense is a good offense, then getting offensive eliminates criticism and competition. It's just about a truism that a catchy slogan is a falsehood rather than a reliable standard. Offensiveness is a fools way of winning; it doesn't win in the long run.

Irrationality in the abstract realm is the same as criminality in the concrete realm. A lot of supposed normalcy would be criminal if translated into concreteness. This is why material life was created. Satan and sin had taken over spiritual existence promoting every imaginable fraud and perversion as necessary and virtuous. Once material life existed, the truth about fraud being destructive became more apparent. But there is a tendency to refuse to take the lessons in abstract areas like communication.

So the question of "why rationality" is the same as "why not criminality". Crime is a good lesson for morality, because crime is sin which is more visible and extreme than usual. What applies to crime applies to all sin, except that police cannot be used to prevent abstract and inconspicuous sin.

Why should a person not be assaulted over a dispute? Justice is defined by the golden rule. What people demand for themselves is justice for others. But there are two questions here. One, why doesn't the abstractness of communication make it more flexible than the concreteness of crimes like assault? And two, why not one standard for friends (or worthies) and a different standard for enemies (or worthless dregs)?

Here's the answer. If the police become ineffective in an area like street gangs, the crime level keeps increasing until it gets so out-of-hand that drastic measures become necessary. Similarly, whenever abstract corruption occurs, it leads to an outcome which is visibly corrupt.

Examples are informative, because all corruption follows the same patterns. Nazism is the most extreme example of corruption in recent times. It included accusations against Jews, moralists (the White Rose and Polish Priests), misfits, invalids and all vulnerable persons (referred to as worthless eaters). There was no objective reality with the accusations. There were superficialities of claiming to clean up the gene pool and create the Arian race. There was no such thing as an Arian race. It included misrepresentations, such as claiming the Ukrainians were the equivalent of Jews.

What end point could such corruption lead to? The Nazis were self-destructing by the time the Allies defeated them. If the end result were justifiable, justifiable methods would be used to achieve it.

What end point or purpose is being achieved by accusations, misrepresentations and superficialities in communication? The purpose is to dominate and control through power mongering.

Domination is the basic driving force for all significant sin. Corrupters sometimes try to justify domination by equating it with discipline, but discipline is only constructive when it does not involve domination. Dominators never allow themselves to be dominated, which defines domination as an injustice.

The ultimate result of corruption is that it puts a person in conflict with everyone else. It is threatening to everyone, because it defines the perpetrators. The definitions never change until the perpetrators redefine themselves, which is repentance.

In other words, persons who promote irrationality through corrupt communication assume they are getting by with something trivial. But sin doesn't pay. It is not trivial in what it says about their standards and the direction in which they are heading.