The Only Possible Criteria For Valid Judgment

All while forsaking the very thing that is the core of reality and thinking themselves intelligent or justified, many non-rationalists discriminate based upon asinine criteria for two primary reasons: they either want to feel better about themselves and thus target other people in order to make themselves look "important" by comparison or they submit to whatever cultural conditioning they encounter related to race, gender, age, and more.  Sheer stupidity is always by necessity at the heart of all of this, as both of these primary, broad reasons reduces down to mere assumptions or the avoidable neglect of logical truths.  If they hold to these idiocies as children, they might never give them up, and at least not by looking to reason on their own, for adult non-rationalists are even worse than plenty of children at seeking truth!

These irrationalists, comprising the vast majority of all people to ever have lived, are slaves to errors and assumptions, and fallacious discrimination is a common expression of irrationalism now and in the historical record.  They might not always discriminate consistently or in every category that they could, but they might hate or dismiss people based upon their gender, race, nationality, age, subjective degree of sex appeal, family descent, language(s), accent, job (immoral jobs aside), height, weight, personal preferences, or literally any other factor irrelevant to their rationality and moral standing.  Too concerned with tradition or emotionalism or persuasion than reason, they might even fiercely push back when confronted and refuted.

The one thing they will seldom do in this regard is actually care about someone's true rationality--not about subjective persuasion, but alignment with the necessary truths of logic--or their moral character--not whether they abide by cultural norms or have the same subjective preferences, but whether they are actually righteous people.  Believing they are rational for clinging to assumptions they find convenient or popular or appealing, they will think that things follow from ideas that have nothing to do with them or have faith in their worldview rather than embracing only what can be logically proven (to clarify, that some things are probabilistically likely, including Christianity being true, can be proven even if their actual veracity cannot be known).  Especially if they are motivated by arrogance rather than arriving at it for unrelated but fallacious reasons, they will not be eager to regard people as equals except for philosophical ideology and moral alignment.

Non-rationalists often look down upon people for anything at all except for the only criteria that could possibly matter.  Does someone know and live for the necessary truths of logical axioms that are independent of all else and that all other things hinge on?  If not, are they open to shedding assumptions and neglect of reality if prompted by another person?  Unless they at least do one of these things, they are fools, undeserving of their very existence for their apathy towards the very foundations of truth itself.  Do they seek to know what they can about what moral obligations likely exist, distinguishing between preferences, conscience, cultural norms, and the concept of true obligation?  Would they at least care, if someone else prompted them, that what they wish or how they were raised have nothing to do with whether morality exists or what its duties consist of?  If not, they are also fools who only care about whatever fulfills them or deludes them into irrationalistic stupor.