I know what right wing conservatives would say to this, but liberals. Answer this.
You live in a subdivision consisting of twenty one houses, each with large families and each has only one spare bedroom with the exception of your house which has no spare bedrooms. You are the president of the homeowner's association. You have full authority to make decisions on behalf of all tenants and you will have to make this decision alone, without discussion with the other home owners
A storm is brewing. A bad one. No one should be outdoors during the coming torrential rains. Twenty people show up on your doorstep. They are homeless and in need of shelter. You know, for a fact, that people who hate you and your little neighborhood are among the people out in the elements and they could be in this group. They have sworn to kill any of you. Unfortunately, you don't know which person it is or if one of these people is even in this group.
You cannot take any of them into your house. Your only options are to house each one in a separate house or to turn them all away. Do you house them all, knowing that one of the families in your community may die? Do you turn them all away and hope for the best?
If you answer that you would take them in how would you react if one family died because of your decision? Would you think since 19 innocent homeless people were saved that it was worth the one innocent family's death?
Not a very good liberal but:
I would take them into my home. Sleeping them on the floor, in the garage or wherever else I could put them. I would take in as many as possible, making it clear it would be a bad night but it's all I had.
I would ask my neighbors (ask!) for extra blankets, matresses, etc. as necessary. If they volunteered their own home I would accept after explaining exactly what they were letting themselves in for.
I would explain the situation to those now sleeping in my house, and ask for their help in watching out for any trouble and in quelling it should it arise. I would expect and require that some remain awake all night along with me. I would empty my house of anyone (spouse, children, others) except me and WOULD ask neighbors to put them up for the night.
Under no conditions would I force others to engage in a charitable, but possibly highly dangerous, situation. Neither neighbors nor the homeless.
That's pretty sharp, Wilderness, there may be hope for conservatives, yet...
Should you ever investigate you will find that conservatives as a group are at least as giving and caring as liberals. They just don't make a big thing of it and don't involve the media.
They don't give as much money perhaps, but they give of themselves instead. They just don't agree that charity should be forced upon them; they will decide who or what shall receive their generosity, not some faceless bureaucrat that has neither the giver nor receiver's best interests at heart.
I don't see myself as unusual at all, but I've given countless hours to children's programs from making sure there is a Christmas to building or operating entertainment functions. I've taken homeless in several times, from family to near strangers to an ex in-law I had no use at all for, and fed and housed them for months at a time until they could get on their feet. I've taken abused women to shelters, at times with the husband following and threatening violence until I could shake them off. I've provided food and groceries to the hungry and I can't count the cars I've helped to repair. It's what conservatives do - help those in need of help - and the ridiculous liberal claims that we don't care or just want people to die are just that. Ridiculous claims, empty political rhetoric without any basis in fact and they say more about the liberal mindset that forms such claims than any words ever could.
Sorry - you punched a button, but I've lived in conservative land, amongst the redneck conservatives so hated by liberals, for most of my life and I know how they live and what they do. It hurts to see my group of people - black, white, brown or red - denigrated in such a way by unknowing and uncaring people that only want their money to lock others into virtual slavery with.
There was an interesting study done in 2014 that showed that poor conservatives give more to charitable causes than wealthy liberals. The study showed that the more a person earns, the less money they tend to give. We know that isn't always true.
I may not have always had the dollars to donate, but I have always been able to give of my time, share my home with the homeless, share my food or buy someone a meal, buy a family groceries, foster children, run a food bank, set someone up with their own apartment, give people a job and a reasonable income for their service, ...there are limitless ways to help others in need. It seems to be my life-long calling in life, because it gives my heart joy.
I tend to trust my first gut feeling and thought about an individual, and must say that has worked out pretty well for me in real life. All glory to God! I believe I would tend to lean the same way you do with the questions posed in the OP, because of my experience and willingness to help and serve others in a safe environment.
I have no doubt that conservatives are concerned human beings, but the fact is that there are simply not enough charities and charitable people to deal with those unemployed, impoverished, etc. What about unemployment benefits, haven't you ever been unemployed? How about the thousands of wounded veterans or their bereaved families, what charity can deal with the magnitude? There simply are not enough people in all reality to address the problems of the misfortunate, the inevitable by product of the capitalist system.
That is OK, I am the leftwing burr in the saddle of conservatives. We have to get past all those accusations of our being nothing more than gun filching socialists..... And there are a lot right leaners that don't like the quiche eating, bleeding heart, sophisticos of the Left
It was only sharp in that he spun his real answer to sound like something else;
"... Under no conditions would I force others to engage in a charitable, but possibly highly dangerous, situation."
Given the parameters of the question, can that mean anything other than he would choose the "turn them all away" option?
But... had he first, (and rightly), disputed the validity of the unsupported restriction of only those two choices, and then offered his abridged version, then maybe he could grab a bit of the glow of the good guy aura.
But... As answered, instead of exposing the question as one of those "have you stopped...yet?" gottcha questions, his response seems to accept only one of the choices when you consider the quoted justification for his answer.
Take another read of the OP, and consider its restrictions. Are they legitimate? Does each person need a whole bedroom? Or is the condition placed to force a direction? And the decision must be made alone, without consultation... Is the scenario a secret? Do the neighbors know? Is this another condition to preclude a legitimately available option?
Combined with other similar examples in the question, the only real answer is that the question is too loaded to be honestly answerable.
... except for Wilderness of course. ;-)
But, taking them into your home wasn't an option.
I would do the same thing though.
I have to turn them all away, I, being in charge, cannot ask others to take the risk, although I would assume that risk for myself, if it were up to me.
This is a controlled scenario experiment. I would not apply my answer in this case to the larger issues surrounding Immigration in this country.
Neither would I but you have to remember that is the way many are looking at it. And, they aren't altogether wrong nor are they bad people for looking at it that way. Wanting to keep those here safe and secure is no reason for them to be insulted or degraded.
I didn't read your response to the OP before, just your response to wilderness. I assumed you agreed with him. I'm shocked you'd turn them all away. Although, it's the only option I see if you can't house them yourself.
As Steve Harvey would say, "Good answer."
"Your only options are to house each one in a separate house or to turn them all away."
Why are those the only options (other than to direct people towards a particular answer)?
With your reference to "right wing conservatives" (is there any other type of political conservative!?) and liberals, I assume you think this scenario demonstrates something about the difference between liberal and conservative political ideology. It doesn't. It demonstrates that the person who thought of it is very bad at thinking of scenarios that demonstrate political ideology. The unrealistic restrictions make it meaningless. It's the equivalent of saying:
You have been chosen to appear in a campaign ad. Appearing in a Clinton campaign ad will cause the immediate deaths of 100 children, and everyone you care about, including your pet dog skippy (or someone else's dog if you don't have one, or do but he's not called skippy). Appearing in a Trump campaign ad will cause the immediate capture of 100 wanted murderers, and nothing else. Appearing in a Trump or Clinton ad is your only option. No other option is available to you. You have to appear in an ad, and it has to be a Trump or Clinton ad. You can't not appear in an ad, and you can't not choose between a Trump ad or a Clinton ad.
I know what a non-left-wing right-wing conservative who is on the right would choose. What would you choose?
Well I'd choose a less ridiculous scenario, but apparently that's not an option.
So, you are afraid to supply an answer. That's ok.
You just call me a fraidy cat, so I guess I'll have to answer now!
First I need to know:
What is the likelihood (unlikely, likely, or very likely) of someone dying if they are caught out in storm?
How long is the storm expected to last?
Is there any alternative place for the group to find refuge before the storm hits?
How many people in the group of 20:
are children or babies (13 years and under)?
are elderly (65 years and over)?
have impairments that affect their mobility?
are potentially frail, infirm or vulnerable in some other way?
Why can't I take any of them into my house?
Why do I have to take them all, or turn all of them away?
When I campaigned to be elected as president of the homeowner's association, what was my policy on dealing with emergency situations like this, i.e. what was the policy that got me elected to president?
Does the homeowner's association have any kind of written rules or guidance that might be relevant to this scenario? If so, what?
Who can I discuss the decision with?
I agree that this scenario is not comparable to the refugee policy, if that is what it is intended to be. No one forces refugees into someone's home. They are located in communities around the U.S. where they are required to live under the same laws as everyone else. We have citizens who are dangerous, and we arrest and try them if they commit a crime. It is no different with refugees. It would be interesting to see if refugees have historically been more or less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.
It isn't really supposed to be a comparison but think about it. Someone doesn't have to be in your home. Just in your home town. Look at what happened in NY.
The point is that many conservatives look at the worst that can happen and look toward their government to protect the citizens. Many liberals ignore the worst that can happen and chastise conservatives for worrying about it. We are probably going to see more and more attacks such as what happened in NY. I applaud the FBI for their generous nature in attempting to see the best in the person who has been arrested for these heinous acts. They interviewed him repeatedly over the years and consistently deemed him to not be a threat. If it turns out that he did plant those bombs then we have to accept the fact that our generous natures are going to eventually cause the death of some of our citizens. .I'm simply curious if, put in the position to make the decision to let people continue to flow in from these areas, would someone do it? If you had to look at it from the viewpoint that some of our citizens will eventually die; does it still seem foolish to worry about it? We know this guy isn't one of the refugees but he is a naturalized citizen who we welcomed into our country.
I'm not heartless. I honestly believe that were I in the position of someone fleeing the wars I would be able to understand the fears of those I was asking to harbor me.
It is not foolish to worry about it, which is why all refugees are put through an extensive process involving six (?) government agencies before they are admitted to the country. My point is, statistically speaking, are they a greater threat than our own citizens? Are you more likely to die at the hands of a terrorist (or even just a common criminal) who came in as a refugee than from the hands of a fellow countryman? I think it's probably the latter, but I haven't actually looked at the statistics.
I am following all of this but 1 in 20 is a far cry to a drop of brine in a 10 gallon vat of water. Such is the situation for 10,000 people in a nation of 300 millions.
There are other issues involved, refugees will received background screening at mentioned by the Panther, which in a world where they can spot a peanut from orbit should be somewhat determinative. I did not have that option in your scenario.
I am also open to being being more welcoming considering the fact that 3 million adherents of Islam already live here. I have seen no disproportionate penchant for crime from this group.
I also have to speak on Panther's point, if you took a random look at 10,000 citizens is there factual evidence that they would have be less of risk from a criminal standpoint than refugees?
What I say to conservatives, is that we have to be careful to not be unduly alarmist, jumping to conclusions, as much of the terrorism in the news has come from our home grown. Before we dismiss all immigrants and refugees in their entirety, certain steps should be taken first, it's only fair.
We could also see what Muslim groups of refugees do in that regard by looking at countries that have settled large groups of them. Exclude, of course, those giant camps that have not been accepted and settled. In view of the rather obvious context here, would that not be more appropriate than looking at all refugees?
Outstanding hub! It'll be interesting to see how a leftist will respond. I feel like can already guess but I'll refrain.
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … ht-to-hellIt's pretty clear Waters hates Americans that don't share her radical views, telling them they can go straight to h***! Really Maxine? The poster girl for...
by AnnCee5 years ago
It seems to me that attacks on Conservatives or Christians are being applauded on the left. Would it take much more than a wink or a nod from the "proper authorities" to bring on all out physical...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows...
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
The phrase is being used as shorthand by some prominent conservatives for a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement, a development they see as debasing modern conservatism’s proud intellectual history. First...
by crankalicious4 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.