Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (19306)	3/27/1998 4:59:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

The concept of tolerance is really quite simple to me, although it may not be for you. First, what hurts others must not be tolerated. Actions which hurt others, murder, beating, robbery, assault, violence against the person of another is anathema to me. Secondly, I do not tolerate property crimes, although I see them as significantly less important than crimes against a person, or an animal,for that matter. For though I eat meat, and wear leather, I do not believe any creature should be tortured or brutalized. And I have always hoped the slaughtered animals I eat were killed humanely- although I know this is not always the case. As for the crimes a person wishes to commit against himself- the use of drugs, the use of prostitutes, I find these to be silly things to criminalize. If a person hurts only himself, in my opinion, he has committed no crime. This is not true of the drunk driver, who gets behind the wheel of a car, for he endangers others. But the heroin addict, who has the money for his heroin by legal means, hurts only himself and should be allowed to do this. You might argue that such actions destroy society, and I would say yes, but criminalizing them destroys it more. So I would not only allow people to destroy themselves I would aid them in their pursuit. I would provide drugs through clinics that offered a safe and cheap supply to addicts, thus eliminating the need for gangs as the pharmacies of our underclasses. It is my belief that there would be less crime and not many more addicts if this was so. But it is people obsessed with right and wrong who will never let this come to pass. And yet, a man should be allowed to govern his own body and his own soul, if he brings harm only to himself. I think the Christian God would wish that men had the free choice to redeem or destroy themselves. Perhaps tolerance is too loaded a word for you. By tolerance I do not mean I do not think an action is wrong. But I do mean I would not use coercive agencies to prevent that action in another. I believe the use of drugs is wrong. I do not even drink coffee or tea, or cola with caffeine. I do not smoke. I usually take nothing when I am ill. I feel better without drugs. I distrust drugs, I think they are wrong. And yet, some people cannot live without them. So who am I to judge? I tell my children they are to be avoided. They have me as an example. I drink very little, a glass of wine once or twice a week with dinner. I think to be a drunkard is wrong. But I would not prevent someone from drinking- for that is something one must do for themselves. I do not accept drunkeness. I would not have a drunkard for a friend. Yet I do not think it makes much sense to make a law about such a thing. But to talk of the tolerance for other people's religions, or natures (and I believe homosexuality is a trait not a choice, although to act upon a homosexual nature is a choice, just as to act upon one's heterosexual nature is a choice) in the same breath as to speak of toleration for criminal actions makes no sense. To tolerate beliefs is one thing, to tolerate actions is another. The only great difficulty I see is where beliefs which are centered on hating others, generate actions that cause harm. Nancy was speaking of this. And it is a great problem. Where does belief slip into action? I do not know the answer to that. I do know that I have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I pass that sense on to my children. But I would not force you to agree with me. And I would not tell you "I am right, and you are wrong." Because I do not know what is right and what is wrong for sure (although, as I stated, I am pretty sure loving your fellow man, irregardless of his beliefs (as long as they are non-hateful- I refuse to love people who wish to do harm to other people- I will not do that) is a good thing. So what I am trying to say is that toleration need not be divorced from right and wrong.