If Rationalists Fight

If two people often fight, and yet both are supposedly rationalists, then one or both of them must be in error, even if only in a subtle way.  Logical necessity entails that contrary ideas cannot be simultaneously true.  Since contradictory things cannot be true at once, when two people verbally quarrel over something, either they have a disagreement of some kind or one of them has lapsed into irrationality, or else they would not be fighting.  If they have a disagreement, one or the other must be proclaiming an (at least epistemologically) invalid notion or mishandling their personality.  Ongoing fights between two individuals can thus only mean that one or both are in the wrong on some matter.

There would be nothing else to fight over.  Certainly, nothing else could merit any sort of confrontation.  One reluctant conflict over a misperceived communication is one thing, as this can happen with two perfectly rationalistic people who know and cling to reason and thus make no assumptions.  This could even happen more than once; misperceived communication is not necessarily avoidable in all cases just because two people believe the right things, starting with the inherent truths of logical axioms, for the right reasons.  However, if two people genuinely fight each other in their words and it is not an (hopefully) easily resolved issue of communication, they have different worldviews or are acting out of something like emotionalism.

Of course, if they have different worldviews, at least one of them is inevitably wrong and cannot deserve to not be confronted.  They also cannot deserve to not be treated with some degree of harshness.  Fighting repeatedly and about multiple subjects, an even greater form of conflict, can only be done when someone is being flagrantly, persistently irrational.  Knowing something is true on the level of rationalistic proof does not mean someone will always honor a necessary truth in how they approach conversations.   Perhaps they still needlessly or fallaciously fight with their friends, siblings, spouse, or parents.

Some people might be in a troubled relationship of this kind due to frequent verbal sparring (or the looming threat of it).  Still, they might desperately want it to not be true that one party must be at fault if such a thing is happening.  This can only be the case!  For those in such relationships, there is the option to show mercy or endure the needless conflict, and there is the option to walk away from the other person.  There can be rational and irrational motivations behind each course of action.  If two rationalists in particular fight as opposed to some other arrangement, one of them at a minimum has faltered, and if they continue to fight, at least one of them has not aligned in their words and behaviors with the necessary truths they might still know.