You could argue that people who indulge in those behaviors should be guided to better choices, more constructive action, but the really intelligent ones know what they’re doing and why, and they choose their course in full understanding of the probable outcomes. Not everyone can be fixed with common sense, proper clinical technique and a dose of tolerance. And I’m not talking about people with mental illnesses — I’m talking about people who’ve sanely surveyed their options and chosen to damage others for fun or profit. They exist.

What about deeply-felt political issues? Does a person who so deeply feels for the plight of the unborn that they injure the ones they feel are doing harm deserve tolerance? Those who generally sing the strongest praises of tolerance are usually the ones who would say not.

And what about those who destroy private property in the name of the green, living world that can’t speak for itself? What if it were your property? Tolerance?

I’m not saying those people don’t deserve tolerance, I’m saying a warm, fuzzy blanket of tolerance covers a lot of actions. While you’re making the point that tattoos and biker boots aren’t the devil’s mark, consider that you’ve focused the lens of tolerance too tightly and made your examples too personal.

Intolerance is sometimes about the way we look or misunderstanding about who we are, but it can also be about defining and rejecting those who have made choices against what we think of as appropriate in a civilized society. The former type can be confused with the latter, but it’s really not the same, and we can do without it. The latter type is indispensable for the continuance of a just, civilized society.

FYI, saying someone might fit a certain generalisation is still insulting. Let me demonstrate. Your a women, and most women are over emotional and irrational. Of course, I don’t agree with this, but it’s the exactly the same thing.

But this is irrelevant, because you obviously agree with me. You said “Well, if we are to follow your theory, then I guess none of us should drive either, since many car accidents are not the DRIVER’s fault.” You claim this was sarcasm, this means that you actually were joking, and don’t think my theory means that.

“I will just say that you are obviously an equal opportunity downer.” Another bigoted ad hominem assumption. You seem to be rather good at these for someone who allegedly supports tolerance.

Where do I claim that your not perfect? Furthermore, I said as stupid as everybody else, thus an IQ of roughly 100. The fact is, I argue with a lot of people in order to test their character, see if they can accept their opinions being disputed without seeing themselves as insulted. Commonly, including you, they can’t, which is rather saddening. I did not say you were inherently stupid. You’d have to provoke me a lot more than you have in order for me to make that claim.

And to quote you, as it obviously isn’t insulting; if that did not clarify my meaning….well on to ride another day and proves the Harley saying: “If I have to explain, you just wouldn’t understand.”