Peterdjones, who says that:
Do you not believe in consequentialism? I could provide some arguments for it.
What I mainly believe in is the necessity or arguing for claims
I interpreted this to mean that he believed in consequentialism but did not feel I had sufficiently argued that non-consequentialism is evidence of irrationality. That is, that he was aware of arguments for consequentialism but was choosing not to apply them to the issue.
Maybe this interpretation was wrong, but it was not obviously wrong.
I don't particularly believe in consequentialism.
I wouldn't say that someone "is" irrational because they fail to argue one particular point.
It is just that energy spent asserting that certain ideas are or are no rational would be better spent putting forward arguments. Rationality is something you do.
Y'all know the rules: