to ponder the quality of 'reasonableness'?

[MrsSeanBean]

If the majority of views on an AIBU thread support view "A" does view "A" become the 'reasonable' view?

Is reasonableness decided democratically / by the majority?

What qualities does a reasonable person possess? How can a reasonable person be defined?

Finally, would it be better if AIBU was renamed AIBR (Am I being reasonable)? This just sounds a bit more positive somehow.

Had to read that 3 times, and now my head hurts

I would say it depends entirely on what the person is asking AIBU for in the first place, every case is different.

Does it matter?

Too difficult a question for thicko like me

isn't something to do with getting a bus to Clapham?

Actually, I think you may have a point about AIBR. I do think it is simply te title that sends people a bit polar.

Yes reasonableness is often decided by the majority, the majority have to be being pretty unreasonable before they are identified as such.

A resonable person is someone who has the ability to see more than one POV and balance them even when they are presented quite a skewed argument or representation or are difficult to be reasonable about (ie emotive subjects).

Sorry about making your heat hurt VT! Mine did a bit when trying to work out why I was confused thinking about it as well.

I think it does matter for several reasons, for example, in the MN context, that lots of people here seem to want to know if they are being unreasonable or not.

Also, it seems to be an important yet somehow indefinable legal concept.

I think you are right in that every case is different, I just wondered if there seemed to be any cross cutting or generic traits in what was deemed 'reasonable' or otherwise.

I am probably in danger of disappearing up my own backside if I think about this too much.

The majority might be talking rubbish, but it works out on average.

Anyway it's not really a vote. You get to hear why they consider it un/reasonable and hopefully you can see for yourself in the end if you are in the right or not.

Although that could fall down as being unreasonable is typified by not being able to see the reasonable POV

Hmm. Is it possible to be reasonable but to be 'wrong' though?

Yes, of course it is!

Reasonable is reasonable not right!

Wednesbury

Reason is, collectively, those faculties of the mind which engage in such activities as forming judgments, making decisions, solving problems, explaining, generating general principles, and giving particular examples. Aristotle called reason the ability to fill in the middle term in a syllogism.

Reason is often contrasted with emotion, tradition and faith and is thought by rationalists to be more reliable than these in discovering what is true or what is best.

The meaning of the word "reason" overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of "reason" in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", rather than "reasoned" or "reasonable".

More here.

Interesting to note that emotion is in direct contrast to reason!

Sorry just been browsing, should have credited Wikipedia.

"So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."

See, not a single mention of right!

That's unreasonableness actually

Where d'you get that from Tinker?

here

So should we all really be asking 'Am I being rational?'

I must remember to leave emotion and morality at the door when next addressing an AIBU question!

Tinker, thanks.

I think we all know a reasonable person when we see one.

dh is a very reasonable person. Whilst I should wholeheartedly admire this admirable quality, I generally find that it irks me, and leaves me unsettled.

He hasn't a bad word to say about anybody, except Gordon Brown and most banks.

On this pretext, I think we should keep AIBU, because being reasonable is dull.

I love the idea of most MNers asking "am I being rational" whilst answering an AIBU post

(myself included of course!)

Computers are probably very reasonable.

You'd think that Tech would have worked out a program which AIBUs could be fed into to give the definitive answer.

Nope, reasonable needs reason, computers can't reason in that sense.

Am tempted by the idea of an "answer giver" for those threads though, it could be fun!

I don't think it's possible to be reasonable and wrong.

The very quality suggests that you look at both sides, weigh things accordingly, and adopt a dispassionate view.

If nation states worked entirely on reason, it is unlikely that there would ever be war.

Truly reasonable people are capable of making headlines. They are capable of iconic status.

Most of us are entirely irrational and unreasonable.

In answer to your OP, Beanie, if you were to swap it all around, it would still produce the same result.

Yes, Tech could do something with the responses after a cut-off point and tell the OP whether they are in fact reasonable or not!

Computers are very logical, though, I tear my hair out love the way that they refuse to co-operate even if the tiniest syntax is wrong.