Live And Let Live: Where do We Draw The Line?

Should a line be drawn on how you live? To some of our views (so-called)?

Live and Let Live will be abbreviated as LALL in most parts of this piece.

LALL is ‘Said to mean that people should accept the way other people live and behave, especially if they do things in a different way' — Cambridge Dictionary

Also, ‘You should tolerate the opinions and behavior of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own’ — Oxford Dictionary

This dictum has come to stay in our world. It has been sung, written about, and turned into an anthem for different reasons around the world.

But is its definition factual?

My colleague never mops the floor after using the toilet at work. There are always droplets of urine if you go in after him. It’s disgusting. When confronted, he pulls out the LALL card. He has not trained to mob the floor. That’s what cleaners are paid for, so he will not do it.

American accountant, Nathan Larson, is a known supporter of pedophilia and incest. He is also a loud advocate for restricting women’s rights. He is quoted as saying ‘we need to switch to a system that classifies women as property, initially of their fathers and later of their husbands’. He was only arrested (Thank God!) in December 2020 and is to face federal charges, including sex crime involving a minor and kidnapping.

To Live and Let Live is a wonderful philosophy. Until it is not. Yes, your freedom of speech, behavior, worldview is important; but where should we draw the line? Or should there be none? At what point do I call my colleague to order? When am I allowed to warn him to desist from such disgusting behavior? Until he escalates to pooping on the restroom floor? Oh, I know! I should leave him be. Let him do his thang, as per LALL.

According to Larson’s campaign manifesto, his platform includes protecting gun ownership rights, establishing free trade and protecting “benevolent white supremacy,” as well as legalizing incestuous marriage and child pornography because important truths about the human condition, and human sexuality in particular, might be revealed in this art form.

Should Nathan Larson have been allowed to live as a free man, even run for office, with such explicitly radical views? Is that the point of LALL? Oh, he had to be caught in the act of doing something wrong. I see. Now that he has been apprehended with a kidnapped 12-year-old whom he had been grooming for months, what happens next? To the girl who had to be a victim before this openly obscene person could be taken off the streets? More victims have also begun to come forward. At least half a dozen have been identified in the UK, Ireland, Canada.

Why have we let this happen? Larson created websites (now-defunct) that served as a congress for pedophiles like himself. He repeatedly expressed a desire to have sex with infants and children, including his own daughter. Yet, he was allowed to walk the streets and run for office. You say he only talked and wrote about his views; he did not hurt anybody before. Really? Do you not mind being the scapegoat through whom such radical views are tested out on? The one through whom extremists are brought to book.

No, I do not totally disagree with the notion of Live And Let Live!

I only believe that its definition is too shallow and can be easily manipulated to fit into the narrative of every psychopath and sociopath on the prowl. When I asked my co-workers if they think that a line should be drawn to the notion of LALL, they agreed. Most affirmed that the line be drawn when your living adversely affects the life of another living being.

Do you think so too?

Sources for Further Reading

Blessing Oluchukwu Awamba writes about issues affecting females in their twenties, through her personal experiences.