Just pointing out the reason people think we're better off with Rondo than most point guards is because we are, not because Rondo eats sunday dinners at their houses.
Thinking we're better off with Rondo is a defensible position, depending on which alternative we're talking about. I don't mean to suggest that anybody who is a big fan of Rondo must have purely emotional reasons for it.
However, I do think that's a factor with some -- especially those who state the position as if it's obvious and not a point of possible debate.
It's true for both sides.
Dumping Rondo, for instance, is an incredible move or is straight up asinine depending on who you ask.
Some are persistent that he's highly replaceable. Some don't feel he's as replaceable.
Nobody's swayed. Many readily represent opinions as facts.
But being irrational isn't just reserved for optimists. Skeptics (of Rondo, of not tanking) are also prone to this.
Just as skeptics could easily be brushed off as being bad fans, the opinions of optimists are portrayed as homerism and myopic.