My 50 cents

Today I was playing ping-pong, cheerfuly minding my own bussiness, when something distracted my train of thoughts and ultimately made me write this post. A voice was heard above the ususal hustle-bustle of a gym room, belonging to a certain individual I somewhat despise. Why? He is a rather intelligent fellow, not standing out from the average population but for his hatred of a certain ethnic group living in Slovenia. His loud voice and self-confident manner of speaking made me remember a conversation I overheard (between him and some other people) which almost irritated me to the point where I wanted to punch him in the nose. He was exclaiming his conviction about the advantages of removing all the subjects of the aforementioned ethnic group.
Hitting the little orange ball back to my partner I wanted to wrap up this problem with the usual conclusion: well, it's his opinion, he is entitled to one. But somehow my consciousness was not content with this simple, yet elegant standard delimiter. I asked myself: are our actions (or inactions, for that matter) based on our opinions really justifiable with the right to form our own opinions (be they whatever they are) and the right of free expression? Now imagine the conversation between two young boys in their teens: A: "Hey bro, your chick is, like, uglier than (insert the piece of towing equipment you dread most)" B: "What?! Are you fucking insane?" A: "Hey, man, just my 50 cents" B: "Oh, yeah, mate, righty then. Let's grab a beer,". Does it seem plausible? No, didn't think so. Now imagine a similar converation between mr. Adolf Hitler and mr. Roosevelt. In the words of a famous mafia boss: "It's curtains for you, Morgenstern,". So - drawing the line I can see that there are some limits to our rights of free thought and freedom of expression. The limit is the wellbeing of our society. We just do not have the right to respect every lunatic's opinion in relation to his or her actions. The society is built upon a bulk of conventions - morals and law - which must be upheld if there is to be any hope of a secure and just society. In this system there is much room for freedom of thought (you can always choose not to like my cooking), but there are areas where someones actions are so disruptive that his opinions must not be respected and actions, based on these opinions, cannot be tolerated. I won't go further on that (that post is on the long side as it is) - yes, such a position might be dangerous, I am aware on that. Let's just assume that the "morals and laws" I'm talking about are rational and compassionate. I feel this is a good point to wrap this post up, but I have more to say on the subject of opinions. I feel that the opinion clause is often misused by many people as a sort of escape route, or a out-of-jail card. It is often used when the conversation takes a turn towards a conflict. The user sees that his statements might evoke negative reactions with his partners, so he, putting it mildly, takes some weight off of his words. He says "this is just my opinion", in reality meaning "yes, I did say that, but don't take it to seriously, it's just my opinion", as if an opinion had somewhat less impact or meaning than the actual wilfull and rational statement, thus giving opinions a somewhat irational "aftertaste". Being a natural defensive mechanism almost everybody tends to use it (mea culpa...). But we shouldn't. Freedom of thought is to be taken seriously, as it is a right that corresponds to the very nature of man - we tend to think differently, and we feel the urge to be treated as individuals. Having an opinion is part of that. Freedom of thought should not be an instrument for correction of our social faux-passes. We should stand behind what we say and carry the consequences of our decisions. If we aren't ready to do that, we should exercise one of the other important rights associated with man - the right to remain silent...   Kolatkar