> expeting the majority of people not to expect you to be productive at 8.00 AM is anti-social > expecting the majority of people not to be insinctively disgus

> expeting the majority of people not to expect you to be productive at 8.00 AM is anti-social > expecting the majority of people not to be insinctively disgusted by your sexual practices is anti-social I strongly object to this characterization. How is letting people live their life "tiranny (sic) of the minority"? You think instinctive disgust for other lifestyles is and should be the norm? I realize that the term diversity has been poisoned in public discussion, but for lack of a better term: diverse cultures are stronger, both in biology and I would argue socially as well. On the other hand, the authoritarian monoculture you advocate is a joyless and brittle construct that has to be policed strongly and viciously all the time or it will fall apart immediately, and it also doesn't have any immune response to radicalizing forces. In this specific case, a society with nightowls can do more than one without. There are plenty of jobs that have shifts where not being a nightowl destroys people. An ex girlfriend of mine had to do regular night shifts at the hospital. It became a real health issue for her, but me being a nightowl freelance programmer at the time voluntarily keeping the same schedule, I was doing just fine. Being a nightowl is also a social equalizer to an extent, because it allows people who are not rich enough to live distraction-free lives to carve out a time of the day where interuptions are virtually non-existent.