Democrats vs. Republicans

[KevinFinnerty]

I've always thought a succinct and accurate way to describe the difference between the general mindset of Democrats and Republicans is to consider the following set of choices. Would you rather:

(a) Let every innocent person go free, but also let a guilty person go free. (Democrats' choice)

(b) Correctly punish every guilty person, but also wrongly punish an innocent person. (Republicans' choice)

Judging by their actions and positions on various issues, I would think that the majority of Republicans, or at least the most conservative ones who best represent the fundamental ideals of their party, would go with choice (b). However, I don't see how you can really claim that choice (a) isn't the right choice, morally-speaking. What do you all think?

KevinFinnerty Reviewed by KevinFinnerty on 09-06-2007. Democrats vs. Republicans I've always thought a succinct and accurate way to describe the difference between the general mindset of Democrats and Republicans is to consider the following set of choices. Would you rather: (a) Let every innocent person go free, but also let a guilty person go free. (Democrats' choice) (b) Correctly punish every guilty person, but also wrongly punish an innocent person. (Republicans' choice) Judging by their actions and positions on various issues, I would think that the majority Rating: 5

[delusionsofNORMALity]

However, I don't see how you can really claim that choice (a) isn't the right choice, morally-speaking. What do you all think?

you seem to be trapped by the illusion that the world should be fair.

the innocent suffer all the time and by failing to punish the guilty you allow them to further prey on the innocent. there must be a center ground where a significant number of the guilty are punished while only the occasional innocent is wrongfully punished. this is what the current us judicial system strives for.

your initial generalization concerning reps and dems is faulty. though fascists and the bible thumping nut jobs in the party may favor such draconian measures, they hardly constitute the majority of the party. the reps have historically represented an ideology of limited governmental interference with the day to day life of the citizenry. it is the dems who's ideology tends toward massive programs intent on meddling in our lives. though semi-anarchists and free thinkers do gravitate toward the dem party, they do not make up a majority on that side of the aisle either.

[medicinal]

you seem to be trapped by the illusion that the world should be fair.

the innocent suffer all the time and by failing to punish the guilty you allow them to further prey on the innocent. there must be a center ground where a significant number of the guilty are punished while only the occasional innocent is wrongfully punished. this is what the current us judicial system strives for.

your initial generalization concerning reps and dems is faulty. though fascists and the bible thumping nut jobs in the party may favor such draconian measures, they hardly constitute the majority of the party. the reps have historically represented an ideology of limited governmental interference with the day to day life of the citizenry. it is the dems who's ideology tends toward massive programs intent on meddling in our lives. though semi-anarchists and free thinkers do gravitate toward the dem party, they do not make up a majority on that side of the aisle either.

So tell me 'o' wise one, what does the future hold?

[epxroot]

So tell me 'o' wise one, what does the future hold?

Destruction

[delusionsofNORMALity]

So tell me o' wise one, what does the future hold?

i seem to have lost my turban and i don't have ed mcmahon to act as my straight man, but i'll give it a try.



and the answer is -

probably pretty much the same as the human history to date. death and destruction, intolerance and hatred, ignorance and false hope. sprinkled into the mix will be a bit of peace and prosperity, beauty and kindness, a ray of sunshine and a hint of moonlight.



and the question is (drum roll as the envelope is opened) -

what the hell do you expect the wise one to say when asked a stupid question?:hippy:


"thought ya got rid of me, didn't ya sucka."

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

DelusionsOfNormality, you're perfectly displaying the difference between most Republicans and Liberals. I don't actually support liberals in a lot of their endeavors btw, but the matter is clear; There are people like yourself who accept atrocity and injustice because it's always been that way, and those who seek solutions to humanities problems. Just because solutions are difficult and slow coming, doesn't mean we should stop seeking them and embrace a system of mass injustice.

There was a time, in the middle ages, when governments ruled as despots and suppressed the people into poverty and horrid abuse, and nobody has any rights. It was people said we can change the status quo, not accept the same old bullshit, who established democracy in Europe and did away with the despotic feudal system. Thanks to brave inovators who accomplished set-standards like the Magna Carta, our living conditions are a thousand times higher and our government has at least some accountability. Don't tell me all the injustice in the world cannot and should not be changed because it's always been that way. People with your mindset hold us back, revolutionaries commonly viewed as nutjobs and dreamers are the ones who have and will improve(d) this world.

[blunt smoker]

Demo FTW

[Mr. Bubbles]

What were the innocent people doing in jail in the first place?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

There are people like yourself who accept atrocity and injustice because it's always been that way.....

this is probably where i'm supposed to get all huffy and spout a bunch of vitriolic nonsense about someone who would take the few words i've put out on the internet and believe they could intuit my entire world outlook by them, but that seems a bit too counterproductive for my current frame of mind. instead i give you this:

there is a big difference between recognizing atrocity and its causes and accepting it. governments, religions and similar institutions are not entities unto themselves. they are made up of creatures not unlike you and i. as such, they are prone to the same errors as you and i, but on a much more massive scale. in the end it is what the people will accept that determines what course these institutions take and the people are obviously quite content to allow atrocity after atrocity. repairing or replacing an institution will not alleviate societies ills as long as the people's mindset remains the same and you can't force people to be nice.

so, what is to be done? you can attempt to change the people by a series of mind numbing social programs. that has worked so well in the past, hasn't it? you can attempt to force people to act in a righteous manner by restricting their freedoms and allowing them to only do that which is right or you can rant and rave at them for their evil ways, both of these are pretty much sure fire ways of getting your head handed to you on a silver platter. morality cannot be legislated (no, i didn't make that one up), it can only be taught and the best way to teach is by example.

to live one's life as if you were constantly under a microscope, every deceit magnified for all the world to see. to give more than is taken. to accept with grace the curves thrown at you and repay them with kindness. to aspire to saintliness and expect not recognition, but derision. to do all this and more and still succeed in the face of an uncaring world, this is how we should all school the masses and help them evolve into a more ethical species.

excuse me now, my delusions are slipping and "locomotive breath" just came on. time to turn up the tunes.

[KevinFinnerty]

you seem to be trapped by the illusion that the world should be fair.

Well there are certain aspects of this world that aren't fair and are out of our control, so it's no use saying whether or not they "should" be fair. However, it's certainly not an illusion to think that we (citizens as well as the government) should strive to make the world as fair as we possibly can. If everyone thought that it was an illusion to think the world should be as fair as we can possibly make it, monarchs and despots would still be running things, and life would be a hell of a lot less enjoyable for the vast majority of us. Therefore, I definitely think it's worthwhile to discuss what each of us thinks is the fairest way to run things (which is what I meant when I referenced the "right choice, morally-speaking).

the innocent suffer all the time and by failing to punish the guilty you allow them to further prey on the innocent. there must be a center ground where a significant number of the guilty are punished while only the occasional innocent is wrongfully punished. this is what the current us judicial system strives for.

Of course I realize that, ideally, you want to maximize the number of guilty people you correctly punish and minimize the number of innocent people you incorrectly punish. My poll question, however, was about choosing the lesser of two evils. More specifically, it was about which evil each of us (as well as each end of the political spectrum) perceives as being the lesser evil. Yes, by failing to punish the guilty you allow them to possibly, in the future, do more damage on the innocent, and you also give the public the impression that they are less likely to be punished if they are guilty. However, when you incorrectly punish someone who is innocent, you are directly doing damage to an innocent person which, in my estimation and that of most liberals, is clearly a worse transgression than letting a guilty person go free.

And as far as your assertion that my characterization of Republicans and Democrats (maybe I should have said Conservatives and Liberals instead) was faulty, I would have to respectfully disagree with your thinking. To see my point about the parties' differing ideals and priorities, it might help to think about other issues besides court cases. Just look at the Conservatives greater willingness than Liberals to engage in war, be it Iraq, Vietnam, etc. There are many reasons why this is the case, but the main point that separates the two sides is usually whether or not the objective of the war (which both sides usually agree on to some extent) is worth the collateral damage that is bound to be inflicted on innocent people during the course of the war. Conservatives will usually justify it by claiming the potential danger that could come our way if we didn't go to war (think "guilty" Saddam) makes collateral damage worthwhile. Liberals, on the other hand, will usually argue that the potential danger of not going to war does not justify killing "innocent" civilians who had nothing to do with endangering our country.

To clarify, I don't completely disagree with Conservatives on some issues, including war, but I do think that the Conservative way of thinking very much corresponds with (b) in my set of choices, and that way of thinking is simply not the best to have in mind when deciding what's best for this country, or any country.