Oh I remember you from the other thread.

What has made you so bitter and angry at women?

Regardless though you seriously need to seek professional help. Getting trolled on slashdot doesn't count.

Hiding what is perceived as weakness is generally a very wise and rational strategy. Ask any leader of anything anywhere.

You are implicitly assuming that being a leader is the best choice. That's an emotional call, not a rational one.

The thing is: there is no point in the universe. It doesn't exist for a reason, it just exists. There is no rational underlying basis for doing anything at all.

You claimed that who you associate with is part of who you are. I showed that is not true.

No the only thing you showed was not true was the stupid claim of "hanging round with X makes you an X" for X in {christian, muslim, jewish, straight, gay, ...}

Which is marvellous, but besides any point because I never said that.

Seriously learn to read.

Huh?

Are you being incredibly pedantic or are you unable to read?

As an example how how multiple partners can be dealt with in a sane legal system, you pointed to one where it's in fact illegal. That's not really a solution to allowing multiple partners in a fair manner.

So? You didn't address my point, you instead made up a tangential point and thoroughly rebutted it. Well done, you sure showed that straw man who was boss!

If you spend time hanging with Neo Nazis, then you're of questionable character.

2. It is rational to not want to be ostracized by society as being a weak man. But there is a fine line here as well. A lot of our emotional behavior has a basis in rationality. You could say that if someone does (or doesn't do) something out of shame, but doesn't think about the rational part of doing so, it is purely driven by emotion. To return to your question: only when emotion leads someone to doing something that they wouldn't have done had they rationally looked at it does it become a problem.

Except that caring whether you're ostracised by a particular group of people (there are more than enough in society that don't care about such things) is emotional. Frankly our entire behaviour is emotion driven because without that there isn't any rationale for doing anything at all except, possibly, minimizing pain.

I have no idea on the background and if it is reasonable, but:

for no reason other than who you associate

who you associate with is part of who you are and it's entirely reasonable to judge someone by who they keep as friends. If a person for example spent a lot of time hanging with Neo-Nazis or Klansmen, you can be I'm going to make judgements based on thatn.

2. Risk taking, murder and aggression are not necessarily driven by emotion. It's a fine line, but technically those behaviors can be (and might often be) about attaining social status or power.

And what is the desire for social status and power, if not emotional?

3. There is evidence that there should be many more 'husband shelters' and that their lack is driven largely by a culture of (implicitly) shaming 'weak men', not by a lack of battered husbands.

How is that not an example of emotion trumping rationality? Shame is precisely an emotion.

Women want to have babies.
Men want to have sex.

Holy crap you're an idiot. Women do in fact have libidos.

They presume to know better than the parents of those boys and girls.

Well, gee, that's not hard. Have you ever met a parent who tries to live vicariously through their kids (i.e. about 75% of them)? A drunken hedgehog would know better than the parents of those boys and girls.

Anyway, the rest of your post is sadly misguided, because on the one hand you claim you hate social engineering, and on the other hand ignore all the social engineering which is already happening. For example: my 4yo neice claimed "girls can't do physics". Apparently kids are becoming indoctrinated with that at a very young age from peer groups---she doesn't even know what physics IS, she only knows that she as a girl can't do it.

If you truly are against social engineering, then you should be horrified at such a thing because it clearly shows that social engineering is happening.

She is the daughter of a great MAN: Lord Byron, who we honor in Greece because

I honour him because he kept a bear in his room at university and ate a whole bunch of drugs (opium).

But, no matter how cool Byron was, his daughter still invented coding.

Who said anything about whether there's a good solution in "our" legal system? That wasn't part of the question until you added it just now.

It was kind of implicit that "good" was meant to be with respect to Western culture and laws. You can have a nice unambiguous system when a man is allowed as many wives as he wants and if he wants to divorce one (she gets no say of course), then she's out on her ear without anything. It's good for certain definitons of good and it's clear and unambiguous.

And in Canada, the question of multiple primary partners has already been answered by the courts

Then HOW?

Why does everyone keep telling me these things exist without saying what actually happens? So far I've been told twice there are ways of doing it but no one has provided the slighest clue as to how.

Well, there's the splitting up of assets during a divorce. I certainly wouldn't be happy with that being abolished.

Uber has made a name for itself as the alternative to the Taxi Monopoly. And the Taxi business is a huge market, especially if you look at it world wide.

I think this explains a lot. Yes the worldwide market is large, but the corrupt monoply problem seems to be an American one. In many countries there are no "medallion" limits. Anyone who passes the appropriate tests and checks can become a licensed cabbie. And in some countries, those not wishing to be licensed can be cabbies anyway, but they don't get the benefits of licensed cabs.

Can't have your cake and eat it.

Good point. I think war reperations are an excellent idea! What's the worst that could happen?