This is such a typical "far" right view of society. To reduce the success of society in terms of monetary allotment, to me, is such an obvious mistake. It assumes a few things.

1. The rich are rich because they are intellectually superior, and have worked hard to achieve what they have instead of sitting around hoping for money to land in their laps unlike everyone who is "poor".

2. The rich are independent from the poor. I doubt there are very many that are rich without making others poor. In societies that have a larger amount of rich people, are likely to also have a disproportionate amount of those who are poor.

3. Only "poor" people are alcoholics and go to jail. The only difference is that the rich have the means to buy their way out, while the poor would rot in jail.

If you're poor in this country, it's because you're dumb as rocks and/or have impulse control issues.

So by this logic, if you are rich, you aren't dumb as rocks and/or have impulse control issues? Are you kidding me? Turn on the TV or radio, you'll have a great place to start for finding examples of the stupid/impulsive rich.

There is no "the poor." There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

Bullshit. This assumes that the more income you have, the more you have your shit together. A more accurate statement would be the degree to which your income supports your lifestyle. There are varying degrees to which people's fuckups destroy their lives or are just a minor inconvenience.

You aren't going to get rid of the couch-sitting, glue sniffing, inbred poor by simply killing them. The rich, or even the moderately wealthy are so by making others poorer.

The OP's thesis assumes that the status quo in the U.S. gives everyone the same opportunities and advantages, and it is up to each individual to make a choice to be successful or be a waste of space.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. People can be poor because the live in a shitty system, they can also be poor because they are fucked up and continue to make bad choices. It is never all one or the other.

Interesting.

As some have noted, the problem seems to be hippie fucks who choose to push veganism as if it's the only way (which brings to mind this little jewel from my younger years http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hippies). Did you encounter such types?
 
Eating healthy shouldn't be treated as a social stigma that people need to be pressured into. Instead, I think we could most benefit from a calmer, more scientific based approach (here is what these foods are, here is why they are good/bad for you, and it is your choice whether or not to eat them). The fat fucks would eat themselves to death.

Really didn't run into too many hippies except online. In person I found that Veganism attracted more Hipsters who were more doing it because they thought it was cool.

Eating generally has a strong tie to culture and genetic background more than anything. Some people thrive on a meat heavy diet for example, while others thrive on a plant heavy diet. The only way to know if your diet is working for you is examining how you feel, and getting regular doctor checkups to make sure things like LDL Cholesterol, Trigylcerides, and blood sugars are at levels that are appropriate for you.  Some people are highly susceptible to high LDL Cholesterol and don't have to eat much animal products for it to be high.

It's not really useful to think of foods as a good/bad dichotomy. It really depends on how your body reacts to things. For example my mother in law went through a period where she was eating 6 or 7 servings a day of leafy greens like spinach ("good foods") but developed kidney stones from the high amount of oxalates that they contain.  Conversely, a person who is on kidney dialysis needs a diet low on phosphorus, which is in practically every food except for energy-dense food like candy bars. So in order to consume enough energy, candy bars would be an optimal supplement to their nutrient-dense diet to get the calories they need, without overloading on phosphorus.

Using Fatness as a Barometer for health is about as useful as phrenology. More accurately, fat people as well as skinny people are eating themselves to death with foods that make them sick. While some people do get fatter from a poor diet and no excercise, not everybody does. Also not everybody gets skinny from eating well and excercising either. Genetics play the biggest role in body shape and size. Environment does play a role too, but there are healthy, active people out there who are over 300 pounds.

How did you find a vegan diet? I really enjoy some veggies and almost all fruit, but I don't think I could ever give up fish or cheese.

I thought the diet itself was great. It forced me to be creative when cooking and forced me to try new foods and restaurants that I may have overlooked previously.  Physically, I felt about the same as I do now on an omnivorous diet, which was always good.  I get a lot of dedicated physical activity compared to some, 1-2 hours 5-6 times a week, and still fit in my fresh fruits and vegetables wherever I can. Everybody is different though. There are a lot of factors to consider.

Socially, it was problematic with my friends and family. I prepared my own dishes to bring for family/friend barbecues/dinners because there would normally be nothing that they would make for me that I would eat that I would define as a meal. Friends were rarely open to going to Vegan or Vegetarian restaurants, so I made a lot of compromises making meals out of sides and/or side salads at places that served the typical fanfare. Needless to say, it made social interactions around food less enjoyable. It was tolerable because I was living in Chicago where there are a lot of options for that type of eating, and I had more time to cook. Once I moved to a more rural college town in Michigan, my options were much more limited. Eventually, as my time to cook, and money to buy prepared vegan foods dwindled, doing the Vegan thing just became impractical. So if it's something that you're considering, you might want to consider the social implications (if any), time it takes to cook satisfying meals, or money it takes to buy everything Vegan.

But as an omnivore again, I still prefer certain meals prepared vegan because they taste better than the typical meat/potatoes/cheese/repeat that most Americans eat.  It really depends on why you would eat a Vegan diet that will determine your success with it.

This is fucking stupid. Do you realize how much soy you have to eat for this to even fucking matter? I call alarmist bullshit propaganda. As someone who is finishing up their graduate degree in nutrition, I've read both sides of this pointless debate in scientific journals for years, and guess what, you have to eat 100's of grams of soy every day for years for any of this shit to matter. And you're a fool to think that any of these properties described in this article are unique to soy.

Yeah, soy is pretty inefficiently farmed as well. Not to mention a lot of soy products (especially soy milk, blech) taste inferior to the real thing.

Real thing? You mean cow's milk? I don't see what's so real about human's drinking another species' milk. I'll eat moderate amounts of meats and dairy products, but you've gotta be out of your fucking mind if you're going to call drinking cow's milk "real". Personally, I prefer the taste of soy milk in my cereal. I've tried drinking cow's milk, and I find the taste and smell to be beyond reproach.

As with any legume such as soy, there's a lot of digestion of sugars in the large intestine. You eat too many legumes you have to break down more in the colon, which will inevitably create some uncomfortable symptoms.  So just don't scarf down 10 servings of legumes a day, and you'll be fine.

NEXT

Quote from: Conservationist on July 18, 2011, 11:32:35 PM

Quote from: leB on July 18, 2011, 05:35:32 PM

"If Dave is mentally retarded or criminal, you might do it to his whole family."

1. It's not about this cruel/uncruel dichotomy. It's about effective results.

2. If the man is a 'tard, he will pass on those defective genes. Kill the fucker. If he has already passed on the genes, kill his family. If you sterilize them, they will resent you and agitate against you, so kill them.

3. Most people are stupid assholes who are cruel by inattention and slovenly mass tastes. Kill them all.

Purge this earth of its proles-of-the-soul and you will have a new plateau for the human species. Also you get to keep your environment and its creatures that way. BONUS!

But, what results are effective? From an objective, scientific biological perspective, effective is about fitness, simple, plain fitness. > 120s are loosing fitness, <120s are gaining it, invariably, Nature keeps winning in any simple blind propagation of genes.

There's a moral component in any fashion of Eugenics, which necessarily includes cruel/uncruel dichotomies and so. You can't simply bring a biological theleology to people's face; our human nature is much more complex than that, we have deeply rooted values that are practical.

Less crime, less poverty through negative (State driven) Eugenics? Ok, let's suppose it. That stills being a long term moral decision.

That's the reason why I think that Nihilism fails.

Well you have to understand, many of the diehards here don't have much to them besides their internet avatars, so there leaves a gap between practicality and idealism. Because many of them are emotionally damaged, it is easier form them to deny the human spirit beyond black & white objectivity.  Not to worry though, there is a reason ANUS has been around since 1988 and has had ZERO impact on civilization, culture or politics beyond textfiles, and the internet. Not once have ANUSians gotten together and had a an impact on any topics. So, while your logic is sound, it really isn't worth your effort to make much sense here, and is in your better interest to blow of steam and troll.

I'm glad this topic came up. We really need to exterminate anybody with any genetic weaknesses. Even if they are brilliant intellectually, they are a waste if they produce a tard baby or have a family history of physical or mental weaknesses. It should be someone's job to set fire to the hive for anybody with Phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, cancer, diabetes, sickle cell disease, Bloom Syndrome, Canavan Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Familial Dysautonomia, Fanconi Anemia, Gaucher Disease, Mucolipidosis Type IV, Niemann-Pick Disease, Tay-Sachs Disease, open neural tube defects, or turner syndrome to name a few because they are a severe drains of time and resources.

The government of Norway has begun offering training for foreign diplomats in black metal, following a reported rise in global interest in the genre.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-06/09/norway-diplomats-black-metal

Not sure how to feel about this. While it's great that black metal has been deemed important enough for diplomats to learn about, and I'm not exactly sure what principles will be taught, I would hope they did their research, and not get all their info from Dimmu Borgir.