I don't want to derail your thread but...

Vegetarians don't eat anything that an animal had to die for, that includes all sorts of meat and fish and theoretically insects too. They could do this for all sorts of reasons, for pitying animals, for (arguably) environmental reasons, but also for spiritual reasons. Whatever, the good thing imo is that people are at least more conscious about their health and what they eat. For amusement you can argue veggies to death about whether they wear leather or eat cheese that contains rennet and other small details. Some veggies avoid eggs, others don't.

Vegans are people who don't eat anything produced by animals, period. They claim that cow milk is for baby cows (even though cows produce more milk than the calf needs) They'd claim honey is for bees and they eat nothing but organic vegetables and sourdough bread. They are usually kind of insane, even most veggies I've spoken with agree to that. The thing is that it's impossible to argue that being vegan is healthy. There is no other way for humans to absorb enough calcium than through diary products. The only alternative is to eat vitamin pills and those things are arguably unhealthy too. For amusement you could ask a vegan if a coprophiliac could be a vegan.

Anyway, I'd expect hipsters to eat clear green hemp lollipops with an insect inside it. And no, I'm not vegetarian in case you're wondering.

I think its inevitable that a discussion breaks off into subtopics.

I was a vegan for 5 years, and vegetarian for a year before that.  Do you know if cows inherently produce more milk than a calf needs? Most of the time, dairy cows are injected with hormones that allow them to produce extra milk. Without the hormones I'd be surprised if they produced more milk than a calf needs.  I do agree though that Vegetarianism and especially Veganism opens the door for an obsession about food and ingredients. Some are more obsessive than others.

Regardless, all vegetarianism and veganism can accomplish is LESS reliance on animal products, it can never completely abolish it seeing that everything includes some exploitation or harm toward animals in some way. It is somewhat arbitrary to decide where in the spectrum someone wants to be as far as their contribution to animal cruelty. I never met another Vegan, but for the most part, any vegetarians I met were not really any more annoying than any other person I've met.

I'm not a huge fan of milk (I'll drink it if thats the only thing available), but I still eat cheese. Biologically, humans are designed to use milk from the mother for food, and are able to break it down with the lactase enzyme. As we start transitioning to solid foods, many people stop producing the lactase enzyme because they are able eat solid foods, and don't need the mothers milk. A few thousand years ago, as people started domesticating cows, they started drinking the cow's milk, and over time, our digestive system continued to produce the lactase enzyme past infancy.  Lactose tolerance varies amongst ethnicities though. Those of Northern European decent are best capable of digesting milk passed infancy, while asian and african societies are less able in general.

Also, societies such as western europeans and north americans have the most osteoperosis compared to countries that consume the least dairy milk.  I think I'd prefer plant based sources of calcium over dairy.

Admittedly I'm no expert on the matter, but the bees don't die in the production of honey... maybe switch the word "vegan" with "vegetarian" then. It's never easy.

Is mass production they do. Queen bees are also a commodity and are shipped around to fill in colonies where the queen was worn out or killed.

I think if I were gay, I wouldn't make a big deal of it either. In fact, I'd want it under wraps, like my current sexuality (I only get excited by V-8 trucks). I wouldn't want it to define me and, if people out there did hate fags for having sexual practices that are repulsive and disgusting to heretosexuals, I'd want them not to come after me.

I don't think we can label homosexual practices as being exclusively repulsive to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals who practice S&M or coprophilia in a heterosexual way can  also repulsive to many other hetero or homosexuals.

I don't have any feelings toward homosexuals, either way. I don't know any. That's not from lack of availability. I hang out with people like myself.

My point is that if a angry republican Jesus comes back and kills them off, society will go on. In fact it will probably function better without the drama of fags versus christians going on all the time.

You can't deny that with a straight (ha ha) face. There is a norm. People who get away from that even if they're your friends, are not necessary and that which is not necessary just slows us down as a society.

I don't see why you try to make this personal. It's exactly opposite, I don't care about who they are, but which group they are, same with the pedophiles and emos. If we lose them, no loss. My inner nihilist says so what.

By this logic, minorities of any society would benefit the majority if they left or were exterminated.

This includes

minority christians amongst a society of Jews or a society of Muslims
minority bisexuals amongst a society of homosexual society or heterosexual society
minority nihilists amongst a society of creationists or LaVeyan satanists.
minority misogynists amongst a society of femenists
minority Swahili amongst a society of North Fali or Turgens
minority quakers amongst menonites

etc.

The point is societies thrive with cohesiveness, and groups that try to coexist break majority norms. No matter who or what dies off, life will go on.  Regardless, I don't see what this obsession is with promoting societies that "thrive" or are "productive". Productive toward what? There are no real goals of any society. They pretend like there are, such as "getting into heaven" and what not, but it's all speculative. Whether artificially, or naturally, the human race will be what it will be, and if degenerates infect the rest of the world's population, so what?

We need to stop pretending and supporting this "idealism" that threats of minorities who live amongst dominant cultures is anything else but annoying or uncomfortable. Are emos and/or homosexuals a threat to Iraqi culture? Maybe, but really, for as weak as that culture is, it will always be a passing phase. And if they do take over, then it's Iraqi culture that is weak.

I don't see the point in resisting minority cultures. If they are weak, or can't coexist, they will go away over time. And if they end up taking over, then it was meant to be. And if they end up destroying the human race, then whatever.

This is some twisted logic here. Somehow I doubt that one can use dress as an accurate barometer for strength of character. Otherwise it would easy to improve one's self solely through attire. The obvious point is that these Iraqis see emo dress as a sign of westernism, which they view as counter to their beliefs and culture. Nothing more, nothing less. In this case, they decided to confront this perceived threat to their culture by stoning. Lets not let the inevitable bias and violence against pods who dress emo be mistaken for proper eugenics, and see it as a dysfunction of judgement within this situation.

Maybe this is a virtue of classical conservative culture that maybe exists in rural parts of the middle east and asia, but this would never work in the United States. American conservatives that I know have a more darwinist viewpoint that charity only enables the poor, and that wealth is purely the result of your own success, intelligence, work-ethic, and the ability to overcome obstacles no matter how severe. These are the people that do charity for the recognition, and not for the good it actually does.

2 new tracks posted "The Doom" & "Time of Trials"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPLL41tXgMg

sigh.

This idea of separation that has been adapted not just to homosexuals but of races seems to be a bit misguided and not very well thought out. It assumes races, religions, and cultures all have well defined lines that identify them. And who exactly is going to map the separation of races, gay/non gay/ religious people? Even if we all agreed, that yes, I want to live in a community with people like me and my beliefs, culture and interests, where are the lines going to be drawn? You can't draw them even if you tried.

Read this example and tell me if separating every difference sounds a bit silly.

Even if you agree, Catholics should live with Catholics, Hindus with Hindus etc., what about gay catholics? Ok, give them a community within the catholic community separate from the non-gay catholics. Well races should be separate right? Ok, so we separate chinese gay catholics, into a community, Latino gay catholics into a community, black gay catholics into a community, and white gay catholics into a community. Then we have politics. So Libertarian gay black catholics have a community, Republican gay black catholics, democrat gay black catholics, green party gay black catholics, and then separate communities with the same breakdown for each race and religion after that.

Not to mention gay or straight transgenders and gay or straight cross dressers and straight people. They need a breakdown of their own communities too.

Who is going to decide where everybody should live? And if somebody decides that they no longer want to be straight, or no longer want to be athiest, or Republican, what's the process for transporting them to a different community?

Would these communities have any connection or communication with each other?

Lets start start thinking in terms of plan and action, and not this head up in the clouds/ass idealistic bullshit. My guess is that there won't/can't be any real answers to how this separation but equal bs would actually work. But I welcome any rebuttals or outlines for plans of action if any.

I mostly visit this forum to read discussions about metal, and <1% of the non-stupid non-metal threads and comments. I'll admit though, that I do visit these forums a lot less than when I used to visit the former "aether" forums on here. These forums have gotten ridiculously political (how many "kill the weak/stupid/poor" posts do we really need?) comparatively, yet seem afraid to bash American conservatism as it is just as poisonous as American liberalism. For a forum that pretends to be so serious about building an aristocratic society, I'm surprised how little real life action the employees that manage the forum or ANUS actually take. I don't really expect the casual poster to do anything because clearly they are just here to masturbate.

If the 99% of the world are stupid, the employees of this forum and ANUS are part of the 1% who are not stupid, wouldn't it follow that it should be pretty easy to outsmart all these "idiots" and gain control? There is essentially a war against the stupid being declared here, and the stupid people are winning. What's up with that?

There is also a problem with hiding behind pseudonyms and expecting ideas to be a guide to a better tomorrow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have there been any global revolutions that didn't have a name or a face to them? If this forum and ANUS are designed to only be a place for ideas and to vent, then none of this matters and the forum is fine as it is. But somehow I think it hopes to be bigger than the web, and in which case, there needs to be sections for planning and real life action.