jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (35 posts)

Intellectual Dishonesty?

  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    1) Would you think it fair for 13% of the population to have a 50% say in the running of that nation?

    Wouldn't that be the same thing as saying for each vote the 87% gets, the 13% gets 6. In effect each person in the 13% group is equal in power to a group of six people of the 87%. -Or- 1 out of every 6 people from the 87% get to place one vote, while every member of the 13% group get to have thier own?

    Looking at this from the other side... For a white person's (87%) personal power to be equal to a single member of a minority there would have to be 6 white people.
    Through political activist groups like the NAACP and Affirmitive Action the balance of power of our nation is raised in favor of the minorities. In effect giving the 13% a 50% say (50% of the power) in how our nation is run.

    Is this fair?

    2) Shouldn't a 13% population get a 13% say in the running of the nation? One man one Vote?

    One man One vote means the minorities only get a 13% stake in the nation. At that level they cannot effect any change in thier favor in the running of the nation, unless the majority wants it that way anyway.

    Is this fair?

    3) Should 1% of the population get a 99% say in the running of the nation?
    The 1%ers have an even greater disparity working in thier favor. They have a 99% slice of the power over our nation. The 1%ers vote is greater than the remaining 99% of the population. Thier advocacy group is called money. Using that tool they are above the law and can dictate how the country is run. Requiring money to gain access to the legal system. Requiring money to avoid going to jail (homeless vagrants).

    Is this fair?

    Those of us from the United States believe we live in a free country. Are we being Intellectually dishonest? Do we not actually live under the tyranical rule of dictators?

    From the movie 'The Patroit': "Why should I trade one Tyrant living 3,000 miles away for 3,000 Tyrants living 1 mile away?"

    Is this what we have done?


    Intellectual Dishonesty:
    "Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

    1. Marsden4 profile image88
      Marsden4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting view of things, well written Mikel.

      However, there are some elements I fundamentally disagree with.

      Affirmative action, or equal opportunities as it is moreso called in Europe, has done a lot to help society. Coming from Northern Ireland I cannot imagine how society could function without it. The mandatory 50/50 recruitment for the police was necessary to undo years of excluding Catholics from the state run institutions.

      I am more than willing to debate with you if you are interested.

      Thanks in advance for taking the time to write this article,

      Marsden

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hey There Marsden4 smile

        So you're an advocate of 'For the greater good'?

        Even though clearly some people are being held back? In my first 2 examples the rights of some people are being taken away in the name of the greater good. I believe I agree with you. Sometimes the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many.

        However not always. The needs of the few generally (most of the time) don't out weigh the needs of the many. As is the case in point number 3.

  2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    I should have included a fourth question in the original post.

    Do you think it is fair for the 13%, after having gained the power base of 50%, to use that influence to insure they recieve a greater percentage of the higher level or better paying jobs?

    I.E. of the better positions or better paying positions they have a more than 13% share, say a 78% share of those positions?

    I ask because if we allow Affirmitive Action to continue unchecked that is probably going to be the result.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you think it is possible or likely that affirmative action will "continue unchecked?" That view is not well informed. Once minorities are well represented in an employer's work force affirmative action peters out and the employer is free to hire whomever he wishes. Your notion is akin to the mistaken one about the danger of sharia law sweeping the nation.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Affirmitive action requires a percentage of minorities be represented in all levels of business. Minorities are using the power of affirmitive action to be placed in top level positions across the country.

        If there are more top level positions across the country than there are minority individuals to fill them, then all minority people would be only in positions of the top level.

        That unfairly empowers those people financially, creating another group of people with the power to become financial dictators.

    2. Marsden4 profile image88
      Marsden4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey,

      Thanks for your reply.

      A wee problem has come up here, mind if I get back to you tomorrow? Real life tends to take preference of e-life. Haha

      Marsden

    3. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But Mikel, if the balance is 87/13% even if every one of the 13% were given positions  they would still make up only 13% and not 50% or 78%.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Might point exactly in a previous thread.

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Correct but the political power base isn't one of 13% it is one of at least 50%.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, it's still only 13%.
          And for that 13% to represent 13% of any one group would involve everybody in that group wanting to be involved, and qualifying for that group.

          Affirmative action only requires that the percentage in employment is equal to the percentage of the population.In reality that can never be achieved which is generally why levels of employment are set lower than levels of population even if the higher figure is strived for.

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Mikel, talk me through this, how can 13% become 50%? I'm not saying this is incorrect, but as yet without any substance. Show me how you have reached this conclusion?

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            13% represents the actual population. (Blacks account for 13% of the population of the United States.)

            50% represents the amount of political power a group has. (Blacks/minorities have a 50% say in the political process, not a 13% say, because of/through affirmitive action and other advocacy groups.) Thier collective will/desire is enforced as if they made up 50% of the population as opposed to 13%.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              How can this be? How can 13% hold 50% of the political power? All the affirmative action and other advocacy can not give them more than 13% of the power.

              For their collective will to exercise 50% of the power they must have support from none blacks.
              That's democracy.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How can 1% control the entire government? Through money.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So now all blacks are fabulously wealthy!

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No. You're question was how can that be achieved. Money is a way that can be achieved.

                    What's the problem?

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So, what you're really saying, is that a group comprised of different minorities equates to 50%?. Presumably, multiple minority groups make up 50% If that 's the case, they should influence 50% of the time. Still can't see any validity in your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No I'm not really saying that at all. I'm really saying that a group of people that represent a 13% share of the total population, have a 50% share of the political powerbase of that total population.
                50% of the population? No. 13% of the population.
                50% of the political powerbase? Yes. Which means each individual has 6 times the political power of any individual who is not part of thier racial group.




                ***Including the Latino minority (which is the biggest single minority). Subtracting the 25% of them that are Illegal... I believe that population percentage jumps to 30-35% but don't hold me to that.

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That still doesn't make sense. 13% of the people may be black, they are typically earning lower incomes, probably has about 8% of the power or less do to having fewer people in the 1%.  But your numbers are totally made up anyway.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What the percentage of political power, that the minorities have, actually is(what I listed as 50%) was off the top of my head. The rest of the percentages (populations and number of illegals) were googled and obtained from the Census Bureau of the United States Government.

                    The actual percentage of political power may well be 13%, as it may well be 98%. I could not find a reasonable way to measure that quantity/percentage so I split the difference (50%). The reason I chose 50% was based on affirmitive action's stated goal of racial equality (50/50). Affirmitive Actions stated goal is not 13/87. 13/87 would be actual equality if one man one vote was the measure.

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  well, you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that 13% have 50% of the powerbase. I assume that you mean that the 13% lobby government, which of course is their right, although I doubt they are able to offer great sums of money. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

                  I'm also somewhat dumbfounded, by your assumption that 25%, illegal immigrants, who for the most part, are dirt poor, particularly those in Arizona, somehow have a magic door to government and have become shark like lobbyist. However, again, if you have evidence, then I am all ears.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I am having trouble keeping up with your conclusional jumps.
                    The tone of your reply seems to indicate that you have decided I am stating something other than what I have stated, but again I'm having trouble following your logic.

                    I'm pretty sure I'm being accused of something, or of doing something wrong, I'm just not sure what that is.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Mikel made up the “50% of political power” premise. His 13% black population figure jives with the 2000 US census.

                “In 2000, the racial/ethnic makeup of US residents was: White, 69 percent; Hispanic and Black, 13 percent each; and Asian and other, six percent. By 2050, the projected percentages are 50, 24, 15, and 12” (1)

                Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and others are expected to actual have 50% of the political power in about 40 years.

                (1) http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild … trends-u-s

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah, thank you Quill. I've read the link also. I feel like you've just turned the light on in the room. smile

  3. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Could you tell me how you've been discriminated against? I haven't noticed the private sector affected negatively by affirmative action. I don't understand what you're railing against.

    And, I'll be honest the NAACP isn't the formidable force you envision. Trust me. You can't even get them on the phone to help when you're looking for minorities to give the advantage to.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That would be a whole 'nother thread... or two. hmm

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Seriously? I am really sorry to hear that. But, if it makes you feel any better; as a female I know discrimination well. I don't hold a grudge either.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          To put it in a nutshell, I have been an up and comer since becoming an adult. I don't come from money so I need the same help the minorities need. I have been in competition with minority up and comers for my entire life. Since the minorities always have the affirmitive action advantage (government grants on business start-ups, education, employment etc.) I have always been disadvantaged, in effect a second or third class citizen. Based purely on my sex and race. Every attempt to better myself resulted in a crash against that wall.

          I came to accept, for the greater good, I was not going to be allowed to make my life all I could have made it. Ok, fine, for the benefit of the society I love I can accept a lesser job with lesser pay, but still enough for a comfortable life. But even that was not enough, they took that away from me as well, by importing a new minority...

          ...The Illegal Minority, commonly called Illegal Aliens, and even that lesser but comfortable life is taken from me.

          As bad as all that was what I truly despise... what I'm truly railing against is the 'Intellectual Dishonesty', the denial involved in saying affimitive action does no harm. Saying that there is no cost to white people and no such thing as discrimination against white people by our government or through affirmitive action. Denial to the point that they invent a couple new phrases, 'Reverse-discrimination and Reverse-Racism' because they can't even admit that it is Racism against whites and Discrimination against whites. A life-long discrimination.

          That's what I'm railing against, the exact same thing they railed against and the reason why we created affirmitive action in the first place. Racism.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Mikel,

            It's difficult for working class people (In the US I think you refer to them as middle class) the world over. I think the problem that we have though is that we tend to turn on each other, we blame each other as opposed to standing together and blaming the people who are responsible. If illegal aliens are being recruited as opposed to citizens, of whatever race, then really the employers are the ones to blame. Although, I don't think it's entirely fair to compare equal opportunity initiatives to the illegal recruitment of those who do not have permission to live/work in your nation.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I believe you may have been correct once upon a time. I think that has recently changed however. Admitting the 1%ers exist, uncovering the actions of the 1%ers, taking stock in just how much control over us they have, and looking for ways to reverse the financial dictatorship of this group of people has come to the forefront of the middle classe's awareness. If the news media wasn't controlled by the 1%ers I believe this phenomenon would be all over the news.

              I do agree, we need to work together, if we have any chance of correcting the situation.

              I'm not comparing affirmitive action and equal employment to anything, I'm stating the Illegals are using it against people like me. What other explanation can you give for a situation in which my country is taking money, from me, to put a foreign criminal through college???

  4. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    You are not coming across to me as an 'up and comer', more like a 'whine and blame the colored people-er'.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I guess you have every right to feel that way. I'm not however, nor am I a racist like you are implying. I'm just not willing to be intellectually dishonest or to fall into the intellectual trap of 'Political Correctness'. If it is a duck, I will call it a duck.

      Your Intellectual Dishonesty is apparent. Thanks for playing.

 
working