Paradoxes are fun.

My new hobby: making up new definitions that fit my needs. The definition of a Paradox is that it is paradoxically true and its apparent falsehood leads to its truth. I do not know (nor do i care) if this can really be used as an official definition, but its what I prefer to use.

I use it to attempt to dispel polarization. I do this by taking any seemingly and "obviously" false statement, and turning it inside out in order to force paradox. I'll take this statement and use any devious thought form to cast doubt on adherence to dogmatic truth.

I say Rationality Is Irrational. This is because no matter the situation, a fully functional and rational person will invariably run into an irrational person. If you attribute anything to rationality, it will follow that the opposite would be attributed to irrationality. One may believe that it is rational for a person to avoid all that is irrational, but unfortunately, that which is irrational may by the same token be compelled to seek out the rational. Then the two are doomed to meet no matter the situation.
So now when rationality and irrationality meet in the same room, what does the rational one do. As ingrained into our society, its probably rational to not bother that which is unknown to you, and therefore the opposite would be to poke, prod, bother, and maybe even kill that which is unknown. Then what does the rational do? Does it turn the other cheek, and forfeit its livability, or even possibility its life? or does it attempt to banish the irrational by in fact turning it onto itself forfeiting its purity as true-rational? Either way, pure rationality does not survive past this simplistic setup. It breaks down to two possibilities Rationality is Irrational, or Rationality is suicidal (which in turn is viewed as irrational anyways).

Now I know as much as anyone that this is a silly argument, but it brings a Catch 22. What if my logic was irrational in the previous argument? Well then a rational person must disregard everything that I have said. Everything I have said will probably be bulked together and had a big rubber stamp of nonsense. The rational man must dogmatically disregard my claims as I am mindless. But in my opinion I am the rational one, and he is the irrational one for he dogmatically believes things without consideration. Who is right? Well I am because I say so, and Polarization like his is my enemy.

I guess all I can say is anti-polarization is polarizing. I want to irrationally push this rational view to the infinite limits.