Rationally chasing an irrational goal is not rational behaviour.

Given that there is (by your own admittance) no basis to call one goal more valid than another, a goal in itself cannot be irrational unless it conflicts with other goals pursued simultaneously.

But you cannot claim the goals are *rational* either.

Finally: I take it that you agree on the original point that caring about whether you are seen as weak by your peers can be (and often is) rational, given your silence on the topic.

Nope, I think it's silly. If you can't be yourself around your peers, you could find new peers.

Feminazis and their lapdogs. To which group do you belong?
.
So the actions of a minority makes you hate the majority?

As to whichever group I belong to, I belong to one that doesn't hate all women, neither do I belive women are inherently inferior to men. That actually makes me happy, because if I ever exhibit a trait that some consider more "femenine", I don't have to worry because it doesn't make me feel inferior.

7) You're smiling right now because you know you were fooled.

Damn you, damn you to hell.

OK, I think you misunderstand: I'm not being nihilist. It's only nihilist if you're driven by literally nothing but logic because there is no logical point to anything. We're not nihilist though, because we have emotions driving us. I'm fine with that.

I'm also not arguing that rationality doesn't exist. That would be perverse.

Secondly, I think it's a stretch to say that I disagree that actions are rational if they further the goal. If the goal is not rational, then the actions are only marginally rational at best. If, for example I was driven to spend the rest of my life wandering round dressed as a giant chicken, well, it would a stretch to call the endavour logical.

The thing is, I believe as the expression goes "you can do as you will, but you cannot will as you will". In other words the goals you have selected have no basis in logic. So I agree that you can act logical to achieve goals, but you're still acting logically to do an ultimate illogical thing.

Anyway, in my mind people are irrationally tied to a place and a particular group of people. They'd rather pretend to be something they're not than go and find a group of people who accept them as they are. Personally, I find that illogical, because if your goal is maximising happiness, then there's a much better local maximum not far grom the current local maximum.

Seriously are you actually interested in a proper discussion or are you just engaging in nit picking for giggles? If the former, I'll continue, but I don't really want to waste my time on the latter.

  Yep, I pointed to one where it is illegal. That is how our legal system deals with it. Just because it doesn't deliver the result you want is not my problem.

We already covered this.

That is how we deal with these things.

No, you haven't said anything about how it's dealt with.

You have race riots

We have riots where the looters form an orderly queue to pick up "a couple of free fings"

http://i.imgur.com/p7v6b.jpg

The looters would also politely wait for the green man before crossing the road with an armfull of "free" TVs even though our country is not so uncivilised to have such things as jaywalking laws.

Anyway you've still missed the entire point. First you tell me than Canada "deals" with it by disallowing it. Then you tell me that actually they don't disallow it and there are some loopholes. So far you have failed to actually say how it's dealt with when it occurs. There is a very specific problem:

How is death, divorce and inheritance dealt with?

I'll also note ou mentioned that all it does allow is for a man under some circumstances to have multiple wives. This is not exactly general polyamy. I even mentioned that in a prior post.

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.