PDA

View Full Version : How tolerant are you ?



Maciamo
15-12-04, 12:33
As a follow-up for the thread Comparing Japan and the world => tolerance & prejudices (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13623), I'd like to ask you next to which of these types of neighbours you wouldn't like to live.

Personally, someone with a criminal record (esp. serious crime) and political extremist if they happen to be religiously motivated (Islamic or new-born Christian kind of extremist) or are racists and have something against me (eg. in case there was an anti-foreigner party in Japan).

I could add emotionally unstable people or heavy drinkers if I lived in a country like the US (because of firearms) or if they were particularily noisy. So I'll just make a "noisy people" category.

The other would be case by case. I guess I wouldn't mind drug-addicts, depending on the kind of drug and intensity, as long as they don't have a criminal record.

As a reminder, the stats from Nationmaster mentioned that the percentage of Japanese people who found these types of neighbours undesireable is as follows :

- 91% for drug addicts
- 82% for political extremists
- 77% for people with AIDS
- 69% for homosexuals
- 62% for emotionally unstable people
- 58% for heavy drinkers
- 50% for criminal record holders
- 11% for people of a different race

thomas
15-12-04, 15:16
I opted for

1. noisy people (too much noise pollution in Japan anyhow)
2. drug addicts (wouldn't like to stumble across used syringes) &
3. political extremists (depending on their political affiliation)

:131:

kirei_na_me
15-12-04, 15:35
It kind of disturbs me that people with AIDS and homosexuals got way over half of the votes.

Anyway, my personal preferences:

1. drug addicts (wouldn't want any desperate crack addict burglarizing my house)
2. noisy people (have children that have to concentrate on homework and sleep)
3. people with a criminal record (wouldn't want a convicted child molester in the vicinity)

All of them depend on the situation, though.

Political extremists: Are they in the KKK or something? If so, then definitely not. I have die-hard conservatives all around me, but we get along just fine.

Homosexuals: Definitely not a problem. Especially if they're women...heh.

People with AIDS: Not a problem.

Emotionally unstable people: Depends on how unstable. My grandma has a bipolar neighbor who sometimes drives people insane, but can usually be managed. Anything worse, I don't know...

Heavy drinkers: Are we talking major alcoholics? They can be kind of like drug addicts. Possible break-in, desperate to get alcohol. My (reformed)alcoholic grandfather would do anything to get a drink. Even drink vanilla flavoring.

People of a different race: Doesn't matter.

Maciamo
15-12-04, 15:37
2. drug addicts (wouldn't like to stumble across used syringes) &


Mmh, neighbour does not mean roommate or someone who share the bathroom or toilet facilities.

And why the drug-addict and not the criminal ? I don't know what they include in "someone with criminal record" but I imagine a murderer, rapist, arsonist or robber who has just got out of jail, not somebody I would like to live anywhere near. I don't think offences (speeding, drunk driving, tax escaping, visa overstaying, etc.) as crimes, so when I hear criminal record (not "offence record" if there is such a thing), it can only be for serious stuff.

BrennaCeDria
15-12-04, 15:38
I only checked drug addicts and 'criminals' meaning serious convictions. I wouldn't be happy about people with lesser convictions, but unless it's huge I probably wouldn't even find out--I'm very private.

acquiredtarget
15-12-04, 19:36
I voted for Political Extremists (left-wing and right-wing), drug-addicts (car broken into), noisy people, and people with criminal records (in-terms of serious crimes. It could be argued that since I've got a speeding ticket, I've got a record)

Fantt
15-12-04, 19:36
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by Drug-Addicts. Some people would call all pot-smokers addicts, and I'm not sure that that's the case. Also, ex-cons could mean people who were convicted for non-violent or victimless crimes... I'd only be scared of living next to violent ex-cons. I'm more concerned with loud neighbors than most of the rest of that. I get very annoyed by loud inconsiderate neighbors.

bossel
15-12-04, 21:02
I don't care who lives next to me as long as they leave me alone. Just want my peace. Hence I only voted for "noisy" & "emotionally unstable" since they are those with the -IMO- greatest probability of getting on my nerves. But it all depends, as usual...

miu
15-12-04, 21:18
I wouldn't want to live next to alcoholics (though i count them as drug addicts) because I know just how much trouble you can get from them. Also noisy people are bad. If someone wants to blast their stereos at 3am on weekdays, you could say that I have a problem with that... :P I'm not sure what "emotionally unstable people" means? I mena it can just as well mean a complete nut case or something milder... Actually I don't really care about what kind of problems/characteristics my neighbours have just as long they don't cause any trouble to me.

If that questionnaire was a basis for a scientific study, it'd never pass :3 It's pretty impossible to say what the people who answer actually think. Maybe it could serve as a sort of measurement as to what kind of characteristics people associate with certain categories or stereotypes...

Sorry if i sound like I'm nit-picking! :bluush:

playaa
15-12-04, 23:08
I have a pretty high tolerance when it comes to who lives next to me, depending on how they act is what would determine if i like them or not.

No matter how normal or weird they are it depends on how they treated and acted towards me that would determine if i liked them or not. :p

No-name
15-12-04, 23:09
I don't really care who lives next to me, provided that they don't bother me.

I did check off several boxes though:
The area I live in is isolated, but I still would like to stay away from drug addicts and political extremists (if they become violent) if I can. Alcoholics, too. Although If I can't tell that there is a problem, then it obviously is not bothering me. Unstable people-- my neighbor spent a half hour yelling at the cable installation guys, writing down their license plates and driving back and forth...If I could avoid this too, I would. Criminal record-- it depends on what the crime is...please no sexual preditors, molesters or creeps. About Homosexuals, noisy people, people with AIDS, and people of other races...all invited. The bar-B-que is Saturday. Bring a side dish.

ragedaddy
16-12-04, 02:12
1. Mentally Unstable People - You never know what crazy Mofos with guns are capable of doing.

2. Noisy People - People who have their subs blasting until 5 am everynight would get to be more than annoying.

3. Drug Addicts - They are likely to bring their other junkie buddies around, and I don't want them to be burlarizing my house to support their habit.

4. People with a Criminal Record - I rather not have repeat offenders around me or my family.


The rest I could deal with, that is unless I've got some wacko trying everyday to recruit me for the Republican party.......

mad pierrot
16-12-04, 06:19
To answer the question, I don't care who lives next to me. People are people, we all have had problems in our past. I believe the community has a responsiblity to the individual as much as the individual does to the community. Imagine this: the undesirables aren't being let into a community, where do they go? The answer? To the ghettos and streets. Ignoring problems or hoping they go away if ignored won't solve the problem. I'll take the dirty, crowded, diverse, dangerous city over the white bread suburbs anyday.

CC1
16-12-04, 19:36
And why the drug-addict and not the criminal ? I don't know what they include in "someone with criminal record" but I imagine a murderer, rapist, arsonist or robber who has just got out of jail, not somebody I would like to live anywhere near. I don't think offences (speeding, drunk driving, tax escaping, visa overstaying, etc.) as crimes, so when I hear criminal record (not "offence record" if there is such a thing), it can only be for serious stuff.

Well, DUI is a felony in the states! :souka:

But here are my choices:

1. Noisy People - I prefer my privacy, and your noise invades that privacy! :-) Especially when I'm working midnights and need to sleep during the day!

2. Drug Addicts - Drugs do bad things to normally good people...never know what is going to happen!

3. Mentally Unstable People - But isn't everyone a little unstable?

4. People with a Criminal Record - I would like to believe that the truly dangerous people are in jail, but I know that the US justice system routinely fails!

misa.j
16-12-04, 21:05
I chose,

Drug addict
Heavy drinker
Noisy people.

Although I would not mind them as long as they don't bother me, I have a few incidents dealing with them that caused a lot of stress, so I picked those.

jovial_jon
16-12-04, 21:59
About people with criminal records - sometimes people get records for little or no reason. I don't think you can dismiss anybody with a criminal record as being a bad person or unsuitable neighbour.

Lina Inverse
17-12-04, 01:44
For me it would be:
- Political Extremists
I wouldn't want to live next to people who are totally screwed in the head.
- Drug Addicts
Not for being drug addicts by themselves, but rather for the "side effects" that go with it: odd behavior, high criminality etc.
- Heavy drinkers
tend to be being very noisy, stirring up trouble etc.
- Noisy people
Especially loud folk music or classical usic would drive me up the wall
- Criminals
Only with severe offenses.

Bob in Iowa
18-12-04, 02:24
None of them really bother me that much as neighbors

Political Extremists -- There were quite a few Bush/Cheney signs in my neighborhood this fall, but I chose to ignore them because those folks have the right to make their own choice.

Homosexuals -- It really makes no difference to me as to the configuration in which two people plug themselves together for a good time, but I do appreciate discretion.

People with AIDS -- poor unfortunate lot. I hope we can find a cure.

Drug-addicts -- As long as they are able to live responsibly in spite of the addiction, and do not endanger my family or property, then it doesn't matter to me.

Emotionally unstable people -- good grief! I think that most folks will fall into that category now and then.

Heavy drinkers -- see "drug addicts"

Noisy people -- Where I live, the houses are spread out a bit, so they would have to be REALLY noisy for that to be a problem, and it would be a problem only if they kept me from sleeping.

People with a criminal record -- see "drug addicts"

People of a different race -- racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing.

When at home, we enjoy our privacy and do our best to respect the privacy of our neighbors.

Miss_apollo7
18-12-04, 02:46
Thw worst case scenario for me is having a neighbour which is NOISY and has a CRIMINAL RECORD...

I am lucky that my neighbours are wonderful ie. they are quiet and trustful neighbours.... :-)

m477
18-12-04, 06:24
I'm only really concerned about behavior. For example, if my neighbor was a black homosexual HIV-positive alcoholic drug-addicted schizophrenic jailbird who worshipped Kim Jong-Il, as long as they kept to themselves and were respectful of people around them then I could care less.

Likewise, if I had a neighbor who agreed with me on all issues and had what I would consider to be an excellent background, if that person was a rude, inconsiderate jerk then none of that would make them any more bearable.

Maciamo
18-12-04, 08:48
About people with criminal records - sometimes people get records for little or no reason. I don't think you can dismiss anybody with a criminal record as being a bad person or unsuitable neighbour.

Depends what you call criminal. I don't think having a speeding ticket qualifies for being called a criminal. The definition of crime is doing something that (seriously) damage other people physically or psychologically (eg. murder, assault, rape, mugging...) or stealing or destroying someone else's property (theft, robbery, arson, vandalism...). Pesonally, anybody who commit such a crime cannot qualify as a "good person".

Watch out that breaking a rule or law is, legally speaking, not a crime but an offence (eg. speeding/parking ticket, tax evasion, insulting a police officer...). In some countries (Belgium. Denmark, Italy...) this is called "sport" and not "crime". ;-) I don't mind living next to a sportsman/woman, but I'd have doubts about anybody with a "real" criminal record. A dog who has bitten once will bite again...



Political Extremists -- There were quite a few Bush/Cheney signs in my neighborhood this fall, but I chose to ignore them because those folks have the right to make their own choice.

Bush supporters are hardly "political extremists". Most of them don't even care about politics. What springs to my mind is rather some neo-nazi group (incl. KKK) or other ultranationalists based on a race, who beat up to death anybody who is not part of their "pure race". If I lived next to some yakuza-looking Japanese nationalists who had decided that the Japanese race was to dominate the world and other "races" had to be exterminated, chances are I would move house.



Emotionally unstable people -- good grief! I think that most folks will fall into that category now and then.

Exactly. 95% of women once a month. ;-)


Noisy people -- Where I live, the houses are spread out a bit, so they would have to be REALLY noisy for that to be a problem, and it would be a problem only if they kept me from sleeping.

Indeed it depends a lot whether you live in a "detached house" or in an apartment. In Tokyo, no matter where you live, the neighbours' wal cannot be more than 30cm away, and wall are only 10cm thick (and hollow), so that eventhough I live in a house, I can hear my neighbour climb up the stairs and even hear their conversation from my house (with a 30cm gap between the two houses). That's normal in Japan. Anybody can hear a small dog barking in house 3 houses away ! So noisy neigbours means people who dare talking when you are sleeping (if you sleep until later than 7am, you wish that your neighbours quickly go to work and let you in peace).

Anyway, I grew up in a house where the nearest neighbours was 100m away, but when there was a party, we could hear them (or vice versa) from 100m away, even with thick well-isolated walls. Sometimes I wish I had had a bazooka to pulverize the gas sellers hollering stupid music in his loudspeaker at 9am on Sundays. But in Tokyo, with the used TV/PC guy, the gyoza vendor, the gas seller, etc. that's almost everyday (only the music of the Wedsnesday morning guy is really annoying though).


Well, DUI is a felony in the states!

I've just checked on Internet and it seems that it is only in the States (among OECD countries at least). The very term "felony" is only American. That's one more reason why I wouldn't like to live in the US, as they make some misdemeanour or offences appear as serious as real crimes.



2. Drug Addicts - Drugs do bad things to normally good people...never know what is going to happen!

Depends what drug. Many Japanese people (esp. the Tokyo salarymen) are drug-addicts (cigarette, alcohol...) but I don't mind. Even cannabis or magic mushrooms users are pretty inoffensive (less than alcoholics for sure). All stimulants (cocaine, amphetamines...) only make people feel stronger and more "awake". There is probably even less risk with such people than with sleepy or drunk people. That leaves us with analgesic (heroin, opium) type of drugs. They usually feel too good to even move a finger, so I don't think they are a problem. Maybe the after-effects are bad, but they will only cause trouble if they are in need and don't have money. But that's the same with food (or even sex). I'd rather say I don't want to live next to poor people in strong need of "something", but that doesn't have to be drug necessarily (cannabis, for instance, does not create a "need" like tobacco, cocaine or heroin).

Bob in Iowa
18-12-04, 14:19
Bush supporters are hardly "political extremists".

You obviously don't know my neighbors!!! :evil:


Tokyo, no matter where you live, the neighbours' wal cannot be more than 30cm away, and wall are only 10cm thick (and hollow)

Having spent about half a year living in a 6 tatami apaato near Tokyo, I am quite familiar with the scenario. Certainly, the noisiness of the neighbors was more apparent then than it is where I live now. On cold winter nights, though, I do miss the sound of the yaki imo guy pulling his cart down the street ringing his bell and announcing his presence to everyone. :-)

m477
19-12-04, 20:19
I've just checked on Internet and it seems that it is only in the States (among OECD countries at least). The very term "felony" is only American. That's one more reason why I wouldn't like to live in the US, as they make some misdemeanour or offences appear as serious as real crimes.

So throwing around 1-3 tons of metal at lethal speeds while you're too wasted to have any idea what's going on isn't a "serious crime"?? Try telling that to someone whose friend or relative was killed by a drunk driver.

Maybe this attitude is why Europe leads the US in road traffic fatalities and injuries (http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm). Personally I'd rather see severe punishments for drunk drivers instead of letting them murder my friends and family, but that's just me.

michi
19-12-04, 21:01
I voted

Drug Addicts, Heavy Drinkers, People with a criminal record, Noisy People

All those because of sporadic behavior which may be potentially harmful to the people they live around

bossel
20-12-04, 01:55
Maybe this attitude is why Europe leads the US in road traffic fatalities and injuries (http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm).
That's not the whole truth, there is more to consider than sheer numbers. A better aproach is to look at relative numbers. If you take the number of deaths per 10,000 vehicles, the US & EU are on the same level. I have only data (http://www.icadts.org/reports/Drugs-FinalReport.pdf) for 1994, but that shows that Norway, Sweden, UK, Netherlands & Italy were doing better than the US. Germany & Finland were on the same level.
Anyway, all these statistics don't say anything about drunk driving. Haven't found any related numbers.

Maciamo
20-12-04, 04:46
So throwing around 1-3 tons of metal at lethal speeds while you're too wasted to have any idea what's going on isn't a "serious crime"?? Try telling that to someone whose friend or relative was killed by a drunk driver.

I think it's all case by case. If someone only have slightly more alcohol in blood than is legally tolerated (and it does vary a lot from country to country, or state to state), but resist well alcohol and only drive 5 min back to one's house on a deserted road, I don't think that if that they should be called "felon" if they happen to be checked by the police on their 5min drive back home. But that is the law in the US.

In the case of somebody too inebriated even to walk who drives at 200km/h (125miles/h) in a crowded city and does't even realise what they are doing, then they could be convicted for irresponible behaviour, and if they cause an accident, for the damages done (and if they kill someone, for manslaughter or homicide). But I think there are as many people who cause deadly accidents without being drunk than people DUI. Many deadly accident are also nobody's fault (technical problem, bad weather, bad luck, etc.).

As for Europe having more accidents, I think the cultural factor is not negligible. You'll notice in Bossel's stats that all the country with the lowest rate of accident are North Germanic countries. Those with the highest figures are all Latin countries (France, Italy, Spain and also Belgium, although only half Latin). But the law not being very different in these countries, I can reasonably assume that the hot-blooded Latin character is more of a danger than drunk driving itself.

CC1
20-12-04, 05:55
I think it's all case by case. If someone only have slightly more alcohol in blood than is legally tolerated (and it does vary a lot from country to country, or state to state), but resist well alcohol and only drive 5 min back to one's house on a deserted road, I don't think that if that they should be called "felon" if they happen to be checked by the police on their 5min drive back home. But that is the law in the US.



There is a fault in your argument! Let's say that road is deserted 7 years in a row everyday of his life, then one night he hits someone who is there changing a flat tire and kills them...Is it a felony now? I think that it is...you can't use the argument that well I weigh 210 lbs and I can hold my liquor, so I should be allowed to get blotto and drive my car...it doesn't work that way!

My argument is...if it is only 5min to your house, why are you driving anyway? :?

Maciamo
20-12-04, 09:26
There is a fault in your argument! Let's say that road is deserted 7 years in a row everyday of his life, then one night he hits someone who is there changing a flat tire and kills them...Is it a felony now?

No it's manslaughter. How can you prove that the driver would not have had that accident if he/she had been sober ? There are so many other factors, eg. darkness, fatigue, stress, people talking to you in the car, loud music, icy roads, technical problem with the car, carelesssness from the person changing the falt tire (no sign or light, too near from the road), fog, etc. I just can't believe that US laws would be so simple as just saying DUI is felony regardless of the circumstances.

In the US, is drunk driving a felony even when one does not cause an accident (i.e. just being checked by the police) ? If so, it is mostly a matter of luck, because the vast majority of the people I know who have a car, both in Europe and in Japan, often drive after drinking at least slightly more alcohol than is allowed. That would make all of them felons then... eventhough they have never caused any accident.


My argument is...if it is only 5min to your house, why are you driving anyway? :?

5min by car usually mean over 1h on foot (well in the countryside or using a expressway at least). Anyway, would it change much if it was 15min by car (say 15-20km) ?

jspecdan
20-12-04, 10:01
i had a roommate freshman year of college who was loud-as-hell and heavy drinker.

sophmore year i lived with a hick from NH (no offense to NH people) who was loud as hell and bothered the **** out of me and also a Masshole (no offense to other Massholes :blush:).

A girl that my 3rd roommate during sophomore year introduced me to who is Korean and very emotionally and mentally unstable.

Junior year I lived with a white dude from MA and a black rasta from Brooklyn.

My three good friends at college are/were heavy pot-smokers.

I've lived with or deal with almost all of the choices Maciamo listed...I think I'll find a single dorm room or apartment when I go back in September.

mad pierrot
20-12-04, 10:04
the vast majority of the people I know who have a car, both in Europe and in Japan, often drive after drinking at least slightly more alcohol than is allowed. That would make all of them felons then... eventhough they have never caused any accident.

Same here, and I'm from the states. BUT, I agree with CC1. I think it should be a felony. Why? Simply because people already abuse the law. Give em' a little more slack, and watch people abuse it even more. I think it's best the way it is now.

Maciamo
20-12-04, 10:07
I've lived with or deal with almost all of the choices Maciamo listed...I think I'll find a single dorm room or apartment when I go back in September.

Living with such people is probably easier (than having a neighbour like that) as you know them and can deal with them more easily.

babar-san
23-12-04, 04:26
as long as they are not fundamentalists or violent offenders/sex offenders, i really could care less. i dont really have a problem with drug users, as long as we set clear what is tolerant and what is not, when it comes to drugs. i happen to be a pot smoker. ive never been big on drinking, but have had my fair share of experimentation with pscho-active drugs and hallucinogens like lsd and mushrooms. i think its the personality type that matters. ppl that are addicted to opiates, or speed, i could not tolerate. i mean ppl who shoot heroin or snort/smoke coke, etc. the gutter drugs. this has a profound impact on the personality of the user and leads to crime eventually. (junkies will steal your **** if they need a fix etc). but ppl who use psychedelics or marijuana do not bother me, because arguably, those drugs are not detrimental to a "addiction" problem. marijuana is medicinal and for the most part, harmless. lsd cannot harm you physically. its nearly impossible to overdose on either one. for instance, technically, to overdose on marijuana, you would have to smoke 44 pounds in under an hour to be at risk of a thc overdose. i dont know anyone capable of such a feat. lsd is not metabolized by your body. it passes in and out of your system rather quikly, triggering a natural biochemical reaction in the nervous system. but because it is not used by your body (metabolized), you are at no risk to injury. prolonged, abusive use of the drug can lead to mental problems, but it takes an amazing amount to produce these problems. sid barret of pink floyd is a good example. he used lsd so regularly and in such large doses, that he screwed up his synaptic pathways. but he also used opiates, whitch effect the brain stem directly. personally, i think it was the combination of many, many difff drugs that did this to him, as lsd has a threshold. once you have opened the synapses as far as they will go, you cannot "trip" any harrder, just prolong the effect. i have experienced this before. one time i ate some acid i bought froma friend of a friend etc. turns out he was a biochemist, and had "made" the acid himself. after i had already taken it. the measurement of the substance is in mics. your average acid has about 80 mics in it. the powerfull acid of the 60's and 70's had an original recipe that needed 250 mics. much more powerfull. he had put 250 mics in each hit. i ate 5 right away. 10 hours later i ate 8 more. i waited for the effects to take hold,but i remained at a constant. for the next 48 hours. my point is, even though i consumed another 2000 mics, i did not experience annything but a prolonged trip. my own chemistry maxed out somewhere in those first five hits, and i couldnt go any further. dont get me wrong, it was "extreme" to say the least, but i still managed to hold my composure. i would not recommend anyone try this that hasnt already. emotionally unstable ppl in the wrong environment taking acid can be a very bad experience for some. also, lsd is not addictive. because after youve taken it and come off of it a good 12 hours later, you dont feel like doing it again for some time.
but i think it is just the class of drug being used. i cant stand drunks. and i dont mean social drinkers, but ppl who have a problem with it. there is nothing more abnoxious on the planet than a drunk that just has to have your attention. arrggg.... it either ends up in you politely excusing yourself, escorting the guest out of your home, or a fight. then they go and get into car accidents, resulting in 50,000 drunk driving related accidents nationwide each year. (us). ppl dont get stoned and get into head on collisions. they say that marijuana is a gateway drug. that is the biggest line of bs ever. ciggeretts and alchohol are gateway drugs. ive had plenty of opportunities to try harder drugs, and have never felt the urge or need to try them, because im happy being humble, quiet, passive pot-smoker:)

Carth
27-12-04, 00:47
I don't mind people who are heavy drinkers, granted that they don't make noise every single night of the week. Which has been the case for the past two weeks; once school begins and I need to begin my study time --it better stop.

StarCrap
30-12-04, 10:22
I don't mind who lives next to me. As long as they don't bother me and I don't bother them.

Kamisama
30-12-04, 10:24
hmm drug addicts vs. noisy people..

well if there's a lot of noise that means they are probably busting up the house because they are on drugs.
Thus bringing down the neighbor hood and the value of houses.

yep i should have picked noisy people.

Ma Cherie
23-03-05, 19:54
I voted political extremests, heavy drinkers, noisy people, and emotionally unstable people (don't ask!).

Ma Cherie
23-03-05, 19:54
I voted political extremests, heavy drinkers, noisy people, and emotionally unstable people (don't ask!).

Lacan
24-03-05, 22:24
noisy, heavy drinking, drug-addicted political extremists

Shooter452
25-03-05, 00:51
No it's manslaughter. How can you prove that the driver would not have had that accident if he/she had been sober ? There are so many other factors, eg. darkness, fatigue, stress, people talking to you in the car, loud music, icy roads, technical problem with the car, carelesssness from the person changing the falt tire (no sign or light, too near from the road), fog, etc. I just can't believe that US laws would be so simple as just saying DUI is felony regardless of the circumstances.

In the US, is drunk driving a felony even when one does not cause an accident (i.e. just being checked by the police)?
Manslaughter is a felony in most of the penal codes with which I have become familiar. But, since felonious conduct is viewed differently in other cultures--you did say that didn't you?--manslaughter may be viewed as a misdemeanor crime in Europe, I dunno.

Again, it would depend on the state--there are 50, they are all different to one extreme of another--but AFAIK, drunk driving in and of itself is only felonious when it is done under habitual-offender statutes, or when the consumption of alcohol is an element of another, more serious crime. In the case of the unfortunate motorist clipped on the roadside while changing a tire, the actual element of the crime in some states occurred not on the shoulder of the road, but in the tavern where he tossed back the shots before the guy with the tire-jack got whacked.

Ut sementem feceris, ita metes.

phantasmagoria
27-03-05, 02:06
Drug Addicts and Noisy people, definitely... But then, I'm not exactly quiet... I ffeel really horrible when I'm loud though, my neighbours are so nice!

HomicidalMouse
27-03-05, 15:40
My brother lived next door to a drug addict once. He came round saying the monkeys in the tree outside were trying to get him. He also threw things out the window to scare the monkeys away. Scary stuff.

sgt. Pepper
28-03-05, 02:22
None of the following.

People with AIDS (sorry, it just doesn't feel safe)
Drug-addicts
Emotionally unstable people
Heavy drinkers
Noisy people
People with a criminal record

Revenant
16-11-05, 04:54
I am very tolerant, but I guess the one kind of person I would never get on with would be a noisy person. I can have enough trouble falling asleep, a noisy person would not help at all.

Political extremists don't bother me too much. We get the Uyoku driving by here once every two days, but other than that, they are entitled to their extremisms.

I've lived with drug-addicts in a back-packers hostel. The only fear I truly have with them is that they will freak (never seen one freak though), a minor one would be having things stolen to be hocked. But then, I really don't have much that can be hocked.

Emotionally unstable people were my neighbors in my hometown. Lots of yelling, some crying, and yet, they were somehow lovable at the same time, even if the guy came over with a hatchet cause he thought we had intentionally injured a cat (we neither intentionally nor accidently harmed the cat, my roomate had simply named the cat Limpy, cause that's the way he came to us when he adopted us as his family).

Heavy drinkers are for the most part alright, so long as they can be reasonably quiet when I'm going to bed. The ultimate party animal who cared none at all for the neighbors would get to me though.

Lastly, people with a criminal record, I guess it would depend on the criminal record. No skinners of any kind would be acceptable. Murderers, well depends on the kind of murderer. Same with people with assault records, it really depends on just how they assaulted. Otherwise, I can't think of any other criminals that would bother me were they to live near.

cursore
16-11-05, 09:49
well... I cannot tollerate: noisy people, junkies, alchoolic, criminals.

Carlson
16-11-05, 10:06
it wouldnt really bother me as long as they kept there space or didnt bother me...

Kinsao
16-11-05, 11:33
Hmmm, same here. It depends on the people. I mean, there's no law of nature which says that all drug addicts, criminals, heavy drinkers and emotionally unstable people are bound to be noisy, obnoxious and constantly attempting to steal your stuff. I've known and lived near quite a range of the listed (obviously not for many, many years due to my age, but in some pretty ****** place), and they range in unputtableupnesswith as much as everyone else does. Some make a nuisance of themselves and others don't.

Noisy neighbours don't bother me a great deal as I seem to have a kind of inbuilt selective deafness. If music is really rhythmic, it's fine for me to sleep to up until quite a loud volume. Having said that, I've never suffered neighbours who play music/TV literally so loud that the walls shake - that would piss me off. Loud shouting and/or barking dogs/crying babies at unearthly hours don't really get to me.

What is annoying is if you have neighbours who constantly pick on you, e.g. vandalising your house/garden, knock-and-run kids, throwing things at the windows, peering through the windows, hanging out outside yelling things... etc. etc. :okashii: I'm quite an easy-going person, but these things bug me because if you're not careful they start to impinge on the way you live your life. And why the hell should I let other people's behaviour dictate mine? :okashii: I'm damned if I'm going to cringe in my den like a mouse! :angryfire:

Political extremists could be annoying as neighbours, I guess, if they kept constantly buttonholing you and talking for ages about their views.

Tsuyoiko
16-11-05, 14:21
Revenant said it all really. I hate noise, but the other things would only bother me if they directly affected my life.

Maciamo
17-11-05, 03:57
What is annoying is if you have neighbours who constantly pick on you, e.g. vandalising your house/garden, knock-and-run kids, throwing things at the windows, peering through the windows, hanging out outside yelling things... etc. etc.

That's what guns are made for - or buckets of boiling oil if you don't have a licence (but you need a balcony :relief: ). The idea is to prevent them from doing it again, so you don't have to kill them (as long as they are permanently disabled). That also orks for Jehova's Witnesses. :D

Reiku
01-01-06, 17:08
Well, I only checked "Political Extremists" and "Drug Addicts".

With just about anything else the potential for noise is about the only problem--and I like noisy nieghbors because then they can't complain when I turm my sound system up to ROCK CONCERT VOLUME!!!! to drown them out. :122:

But political extremists and drug addicts pose a potential danger to me the other groups don't:

1: They're more likely to bring the cops by.

In my town, that is a bad thing--it's best if the cops don't know you live here.

2: Their situations make them more likely to come over and cause me trouble directly.

A polical extremist may decide to show up on my doorstep and try to win me over to their way of thinking--once they realize thay can't do that, there could be real problems.

Similarly, drug addicts are likely to either ask me for money or rob me for it--also certain drugs *cough*heroin*cough* can in fact make a person bahave like a sociopath when they're on them--and that's a whole mess of trouble I don't need.

There's also the whole "meth lab + accident = smoking crater where your neighborhood used to be" issue.

GoldCoinLover
05-01-06, 11:12
Well my parents moved to where we are now from lake havasu because they didnt like the city or people there. Since the move, its been terrible for me, but they love it. Its ruined them fianacially.

For example, my neighbors to the left of me are annoying me, as are the people left of them. For one, the people directly left of me, the father who is a mechanics completely ignores me. I wave to him, he looks away, ignores me and is plan rude. The other day, inf act, I waved to him while he was in my car, he looked at me, and didnt'e ven bother to wave back!

The neighbors left to him, have a duaghter who is 14 (Im 17) we both really like videog ames, and her mother bragged about how much her daughter got for christmas. Got a feeling though they don't want me around her or something, everytime I go there there's an excuse she's 'not available'.

Kara_Nari
06-01-06, 02:16
Well, if I had children, I guess I would be more intolerant towards paedophiles.
I think im a fairly tolerant person, in my time I have lived with:
Homosexuals
Drug-addicts
Emotionally unstable people
Heavy drinkers
Noisy people
People with a criminal record
not sure if I lived with anybody with AIDS, but that would be the one thing out of all the above that would bother me the least.
Also I have lived in the country and the city, so I can adapt really easily to where I sleep, been homeless sleeping on the beach before too... so while im still single, I dont care where I live.
Ultimately of course it would be nice to live in a nice neighborhood.
I feel for our neighbors in the house I first lived in Auckland, that was the house with an 'ecclectic mix' of people.
There were drug addicts there, but they kept it to themselves, also there were criminals, but nothing of mine ever went missing, and we never even locked the door, also another time I lived in the worst street in the area, well known for criminals and gangs, thats when I saw that they dont tend to hit their area, because they would be the first suspects, so that was actually the safest place I lived.
At the end of the day, as long as they dont do anything to me (im not bothered by noise) I dont mind, because generally most people are rather nice.

Average_Psycho
07-01-06, 06:56
Hello ^^

I opted on selecting the following:
1. Political Extremists ---- opinion clashes are not usually good and depending on how extreme the person, great difficulties may arise in living conditions and the like. More to say, but I don't know how to word it properly.
2. Drug Addicts ---- may cause a dangerous area to live in, unsafe surroundings; your neighbour(s) may be violent and can cause harm to you. I have more I could say on this, but I can not find the right words to express myself further.
3. Heavy Drinkers ---- capable of causing problems within the community you're residing in, can be violent and may get into trouble which can lead to paranoia. I know heavy drinkers (relatives or close friends of the family) and they'rre not necessarily the best to be around, especially when they've had too much to drink.
4. Criminal Record ---- I do not live in a very safe part of Edmonton (Alberta, Canada), and quite often there are shoot outs and the like very close to where I live. I would feel uneasy living in a neigbour-like proximity to a person with a criminal record, I would be paranoid (as I am now, which is ridiculous), and liable to isolating myself within where I live.

*cough* Sorry if I'm interupting anything. :sorry:

-rika- shinya`
19-01-06, 09:40
i chose ..
Drug-addicts - they do almost anything.! it's horrible
Emotionally unstable people - just the extreme ones..
Heavy drinkers - not necessary, my neighbour is quite a heavy drinker too and he's alright. but those who lost all sense of rational thinking and starts abusing people comes to mind somehow, so i chose this too.. :sick:
Noisy people - it's especially irritating when the neighbours are being really loud in the middle of night. :okashii: no consideration at all for those who has to get up early the next day. it has happened many times and it makes me really mad
People with a criminal record - only applies to people with serious offense i guess. living next to a person who once did something dreadful is scary.

Minty
25-05-06, 23:42
- 91% for drug addicts
- 82% for political extremists
- 77% for people with AIDS
- 69% for homosexuals
- 62% for emotionally unstable people
- 58% for heavy drinkers
- 50% for criminal record holders
- 11% for people of a different race

Political extremist, hmm that can mean racists, no I won't want to live next to people like that, they might bother us.

People with AIDS, yes that sounds scary.

Homosexuals don't bother me that much as long as they keep their bedroom business in their apartment.

Emotionally unstable people can be aggravating because they may come to bother you for money or other things and if they threaten to do something like kill themselves that would be a hassle too.

Heavy drinkers can be dangerous, people do all sorts of silly things when they are drunk, I can get sexually harass by people like this.

Criminal record holders is a big concern, I could be his/her next victim.

People of a different race donft bother me at all, unless something from their culture offends me, like bothering me without good reasons; fight loudly in the middle of the night...etc which can be annoying. I actually live in a building with 2 families of Turks, one black guy who is married to a white women the rest is white French. My neighbours are fine.

Mitsuo
27-05-06, 02:51
Drug-addicts
Emotionally unstable people
Heavy drinkers
Noisy people


I am a pretty tolerant person. But to think about it, I would dislike all of the above.

I really wouldn't want to live next to a drug addict. They may have a meth lab, and could blow up. They may have syringes laying around (which has happened in the past) which someone could step on, or a child might pick it up. They may do other drugs that may not require any lab or syringe, but drugs are something that I can't tolerate.

The cops may frequently visit to check up on them, or random people would show up to do drugs with them. It's not a fun environment to be around IMO.

Emotionally Unstable people are usually loud, and there are always fights. Also, if your leaves seem to be on their side, they will most likely freak out on you.

Heavy Drinkers are not fun. I had a heavy drinker for a while, and everytime he got drunk he beat his wife. We called the police on him so many times. They too are also loud, and it's just not an ideal thing to deal with.

and of course Noisy People. Heavy Drinkers are usually loud like I mentioned above. But most Noisy People are unaware of there behavior. So complaining might do more harm than good. I also just love the sound of: Nothing, Birds, the wind blowing through the trees. Having Noisy neighbors would just ruin all of that.