Oh, I get that. What I am saying is that just because two concepts are irrational does not mean that the language we have constructed to talk about these conce

Oh, I get that. What I am saying is that just because two concepts are irrational does not mean that the language we have constructed to talk about these concepts plays into the shared root cause. As a concrete example: Tea leave reading and bigfoot sightings are both related to (really, both stemming from) apophenia, but accusing tea leave readers of being basically bigfoot-ologists is a rather... 'clumsy' way of handling the subject matter, for better or worse. Sometimes it is certainly useful to point out that an underlying phenomenon is the basis for another absurd hypothesis, but that is something that you need to go into with some degree of fineness. If you just jump right into that, you'll be accused of being "rude, and therefore wrong" (illogical, I know...).