How tolerant are you ?

Next to which kind of neighbours wouldn't you like to live (choose all that apply)

  • Political Extremists

    Votes: 29 43.3%
  • Homosexuals

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • People with AIDS

    Votes: 8 11.9%
  • Drug-addicts

    Votes: 49 73.1%
  • Emotionally unstable people

    Votes: 31 46.3%
  • Heavy drinkers

    Votes: 34 50.7%
  • Noisy people

    Votes: 51 76.1%
  • People with a criminal record

    Votes: 35 52.2%
  • People of a different race

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't mind any of these

    Votes: 5 7.5%

  • Total voters
    67
jovial_jon said:
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...

Bob in Iowa said:
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).

CC1 said:
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).
 
Maciamo said:
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. :)
 
Maciamo said:
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. Personally I'd rather see severe punishments for drunk drivers instead of letting them murder my friends and family, but that's just me.
 
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
 
m477 said:
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 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.
 
m477 said:
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.
 
Maciamo said:
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? :?
 
CC1 said:
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) ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
jspecdan said:
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.
 
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:)
 
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.
 
I don't mind who lives next to me. As long as they don't bother me and I don't bother them.
 
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.
 
I voted political extremests, heavy drinkers, noisy people, and emotionally unstable people (don't ask!).
 
I voted political extremests, heavy drinkers, noisy people, and emotionally unstable people (don't ask!).
 
noisy, heavy drinking, drug-addicted political extremists
 
Manslaughter?

Maciamo said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 

This thread has been viewed 36976 times.

Back
Top