Voice referendum

[SexBomb]

Tell me you don't understand English without telling me.

I just pointed out this experience wasn't indicative of everyone's... and that is documented fact.

Just!

 

[Bulldog Brower]

Think what is more interesting is the way the polling is split by age demographics. If only people up to the age of 45 voted tomorrow, the Yes would win in a canter. Its the older fcks that are all on the no bandwagon. Why?

Because they believe the tripe that the Peta Credlins and Ben Fordhams of this world spit out. And why do they believe that? Because the conservative media tell them that if you agree with me, you'll get the good ole days again.

Its a beautiful con. By the time the oldies realise they have been conned, they are either dead or demented.

The kids of today want change. They have to live with that change. It'll be there world.

And the worst thing about the above - I can insert any number of issues into this paradigm and its the same. Old fcks that just won't let go because they know better. Lol.

I have been following this thread with much interest. I have found that many (but certainly not all) of the arguments from both sides have been informative and thought provoking. It is essential that we have healthy debate over issues such as this one. Doogie, you have provided a number of these informative posts, but, unfortunately, this is not one of them.

You have stooped to the old ageist argument & I'm sure, in hindsight, you have realised the irony of going down the path of dividing the voting population on demographics when discussing an issue of inclusivity. Also, the irony of you sarcastically declaring that oldies know better when in fact it is the younger ones like you who actually know better is just classic! And your baseless generalistion on us oldies? That's as dumb a thing I've read in some time.

I am an oldie, 70 years old. I do not want 'the good ole days'', I am living my best days now. I don't listen to Peta Credlin and Ben Fordham, just as I don't read Crikey or listen to the ABC. It is very difficult to gain a balanced view on issues such as this when most media organisations are either left or right biased.

I get from what you are saying that people up to the age of 45 are right and us oldies are wrong. Why? Are they smarter than us, are they more caring? Aren't many of these younger voters a product of left leaning educational institutions? Younger (I presume) people like you place no weight on our life experiences, what we have learned from the ups and downs in life. We used to be idealistic but one of the many things we have learned is that with ideals come practicalities that need to be taken into account. We also realise how great it is to live in a democracy but that also means that the party or issue we vote for might lose the next election/referendum, and we live with that, something that you may learn with some more life experience.

Your argument reminds me of those in other threads who call anyone supporting Gus or Ciraldo 'sheep'. Someone who doesn't know me from a bar of soap is doubting my intelligence and my decision making ability. As soon as I read or hear that I am a sheep, I know that the person declaring this has run out of ideas, is clutching at straws and has lost the argument. I don't ever consider anything they say after this to have any value.

To be fair, I believe you may have been somewhat frustrated when you wrote this post and I understand that (another thing I have learnt with age). However, this post for me has undone many of the informative posts you have previously made.

 

[Flanagun]

Just!

....ok

 

[Flanagun]

I've a solution, remove all traces of occupation of Aboriginal Australian lands, including you and I.
Utilising your logic, we have to give it a chance.

As I'm sure the Aboriginals will realise far superior results via this, once China realises and claims the continent formerly known as the country, Australia, for themselves.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Way to hijack an argument with nonsense.

 

[Nate DAWG]

are aboriginal people allowed to vote?

Not sure what this means bro? Is it to reference that Aboriginal people get a vote so that is all that is needed? IMO, the status quo is not working from an economic and social perspective.

 

[Flanagun]

There are many guaranteed solutions to problems.
Unfortunately, they're unreasonable solutions.
Finding guaranteed reasonable solutions is far more difficult.

That's why they are called problems

Why are you enabling politicians and bureaucrats the easy way out?
Why are you enabling lazy legislation?
Bring forth proposed constitutional changes in stone, including all of their backing details, so we know what it is and can have confidence that a few chosen words change post-vote change the scope of what it is and is not representative of.
Otherwise, piss off back to Canberra and do it right.
Do you see the same lazy attitude in the private sector? Hell no!
Why? Because it could bankrupt a company!
It could see the executives face imprisonment.

Do it once, do it right.

You do that and you remove scope for change. Why aren't details of the structure of our military all outlined in the constitution? Because if you put something in the constitution it is all but set in stone and structures need to adapt as circumstances change.

Laying every detail out in the constitution is not a good idea, and if the government tried that, I can guarantee they'd be put on blast for it.

For a lot of people, the opportunity to criticise is more important than the detail.

 

[Flanagun]

Hand up vs handout.
The first is why I've volunteered across a range of causes in my lifetime.
The second I discourage.

Elders, tribes, and communities already have organisations to enable that, often run by them.
What will a voice change when they've already constructive control over their advancement?

Said data is because the Aboriginal Australians are from a different civilisation, different evolution from the majority of the rest of the world.
To merge into a modern global society is going to take time and will face hardships, yet I am confident that working together, rather than seeking to further divide, will realise that.
If that means hard love at times, so be it.
If that means supportive compassion at other times, so be it.

All things as they stand right now are not equal, because we are dealing with a dispossessed people who in many cases still feel a strong sense of anger, cultural displacement and lack of respect from the wider community.
That stood out to me out of everything else, as it makes me wonder if you feel the same about the Kurds, the Palestinians, the progressive Afghans, and Iranians, and, and.

Formation of an advisory body which has direct access to parliament, but is still ultimately controlled by the parliament is not a "handout"....and it's not really like any organisation that exists now, or has existed in the past. Not sure why the no side has to be so melodramatic... you say you don't want to "divide", yet you and other no voters are making what is a pretty moderate measure in comparison to other possible measures like treaties, or even bodies like ATSIC, and turning it into something more divisive than it needs to be.

 

[Brendan7]

Have to say I couldn't care less either way, however at this stage I'm siding with not changing it for the sake of it. My issue is and primarily is, how does it affect me, and the details being hidden is not a good thing

 

[Flanagun]

I would too, if it was indicative of recognising Aboriginal Australians as an inferior race.
Fortunately, that is not the case.

It's not about superiority or inferiority. It's about attempting to improve outcomes, and it seems to me a lot of people are just not interested in that, at all.... which is why we have dehumanising language and insulting terms like "second nations" being thrown around on this thread.

 

[Flanagun]

Once again, largely your biased perception.

I, unlike you, do not want to see a gap at all!
I idealistically envision a future for us/we, not you/me!
This goes to the extent I would even change the flag to one that represents all of us, represents the multicultural country we now are.
One that represents Aussie battlers who stick their noses up to aristocracy, elitism, and a minority controlling the majority.

You can't have no gap without closing it... you can't just wave a wand and say I don't want to believe there is a gap, so a gap doesn't exist. The gap is there and clear to see. What are you even talking about, man?

 

[Nasheed]

I have been following this thread with much interest. I have found that many (but certainly not all) of the arguments from both sides have been informative and thought provoking. It is essential that we have healthy debate over issues such as this one. Doogie, you have provided a number of these informative posts, but, unfortunately, this is not one of them.

You have stooped to the old ageist argument & I'm sure, in hindsight, you have realised the irony of going down the path of dividing the voting population on demographics when discussing an issue of inclusivity. Also, the irony of you sarcastically declaring that oldies know better when in fact it is the younger ones like you who actually know better is just classic! And your baseless generalistion on us oldies? That's as dumb a thing I've read in some time.

I am an oldie, 70 years old. I do not want 'the good ole days'', I am living my best days now. I don't listen to Peta Credlin and Ben Fordham, just as I don't read Crikey or listen to the ABC. It is very difficult to gain a balanced view on issues such as this when most media organisations are either left or right biased.

I get from what you are saying that people up to the age of 45 are right and us oldies are wrong. Why? Are they smarter than us, are they more caring? Aren't many of these younger voters a product of left leaning educational institutions? Younger (I presume) people like you place no weight on our life experiences, what we have learned from the ups and downs in life. We used to be idealistic but one of the many things we have learned is that with ideals come practicalities that need to be taken into account. We also realise how great it is to live in a democracy but that also means that the party or issue we vote for might lose the next election/referendum, and we live with that, something that you may learn with some more life experience.

Your argument reminds me of those in other threads who call anyone supporting Gus or Ciraldo 'sheep'. Someone who doesn't know me from a bar of soap is doubting my intelligence and my decision making ability. As soon as I read or hear that I am a sheep, I know that the person declaring this has run out of ideas, is clutching at straws and has lost the argument. I don't ever consider anything they say after this to have any value.

To be fair, I believe you may have been somewhat frustrated when you wrote this post and I understand that (another thing I have learnt with age). However, this post for me has undone many of the informative posts you have previously made.

Respect OG!!

 

[Rodzilla]

Not sure what this means bro? Is it to reference that Aboriginal people get a vote so that is all that is needed? IMO, the status quo is not working from an economic and social perspective.

you just asked what happens if/when the no vote wins, a no vote win seems to suggest that the majority of people think the status quo is all that is needed

the status quo is not working for poor white people either btw

 

[Brendan7]

It's not about superiority or inferiority. It's about attempting to improve outcomes, and it seems to me a lot of people are just not interested in that, at all.... which is why we have dehumanising language and insulting terms like "second nations" being thrown around on this thread.

Problem is every single detail has been left out that is the issue. I'm all for inclusion but can we please demonstrate just how it's going to affect us. We still don't know how this "voice" is being paid for (and blind freddy can interpret that as being yet another tax), they sure as anything are not working for free. It's the details that are the issue, not the concept, 90% would vote for the concept, what they won't is vote for a concept without implementation details. Saying "oh don't worry about that let the politicians do that" is worse! People don't trust politicians I sure as anything don't they are all as bad as each other.

 

[Flanagun]

Therein lies the difference between us, I accept that.
You do not accept there are many living victims of abuse who are thankful for being removed, provided an education, stable household, diet, medical treatment, and society, and supported in their rehabilitation from the abuses they suffered.
Mistakes are always going to be made, and if we look back, rather than forth, we will tend to focus on mistakes, rather than the positives realised.

Now how do you dismiss this?
How do you dismiss me agreeing there no doubt were horror stories, there were mistakes made?
How will you go in addressing there were horror stories from both damned sides and we've all made mistakes?
Or are you the second coming and not capable of making mistakes?

I never said there weren't children who were removed from abusive homes.... or that there weren't a lot of them. All I said was there were a lot of kids who were taken away from good homes and there is still a lot of residual trauma as a result of that. There is no justification for taking any kid away from a loving family and doing so was a lot more than just a "mistake".

Now please stop spamming me with so many replies. I don't have time to sit around and argue with you all day. Especially if you're going to misrepresent what I'm actually saying.

 

[N4TE]

Problem is every single detail has been left out that is the issue. I'm all for inclusion but can we please demonstrate just how it's going to affect us. We still don't know how this "voice" is being paid for (and blind freddy can interpret that as being yet another tax), they sure as anything are not working for free. It's the details that are the issue, not the concept, 90% would vote for the concept, what they won't is vote for a concept without implementation details. Saying "oh don't worry about that let the politicians do that" is worse! People don't trust politicians I sure as anything don't they are all as bad as each other.

This is what I agree with of course I agree with the concept but who is getting the benefits? Who is electing these representatives? What are these people getting paid? And what issues are being resolved? We need transparency on it not just see how it goes.

 

[Philistine]

Now please stop spamming me with so many replies. I don't have time to sit around and argue with you all day. Especially if you're going to misrepresent what I'm actually saying.

Translation. Please don't do a Flanagun on me. I don't have time to sit around and argue all day - just long enough to have the last word, no matter how ridiculous that last word is!

 

[Brendan7]

This is what I agree with of course I agree with the concept but who is getting the benefits? Who is electing these representatives? What are these people getting paid? And what issues are being resolved? We need transparency on it not just see how it goes.

Exactly, it's like they thought the Aus population is for better words "not smart". If you know how it's implemented, release the details then we'll see 85% easily. It's literally gven the NO campaign their slogan for crting out loud and you don't think it's an issue "if you don't know vote no".

 

[Hacky McAxe]

So we are supposed to discriminate for the Aboriginal Australian population?
IIRC close to 13% of Australians live in poverty for example.
If that entirely encapsulates the Aboriginal Australian population, we are still talking about 1:4 ratio of those in need being assisted in this policy based upon a particular demograph.
As for lower life expectancy, males have a lower life expectancy than females, what does the budget funding per sex look like?

"discriminate" is the incorrect word as it's only discrimination if it's unfair treatment.

A much greater percentage of indigenous live in poverty verses non-indigenous.

And as for life expectancy, the difference between indigenous and non-indigenous is greater than the difference between males and females. But this is still addressed with government funding. Nutrition, health advertising, Medicare, etc. All government funded.

 

[Flanagun]

Thanks Captain Obvious.
Without you, no one would have realised Aboriginal Australians are not horses! FFS Ute, really? :/
How about addressing the point and not the medium utilised to try and convey said point in a manner someone who's widely acknowledged as stubborn and argumentative, might actually comprehend?

That unfortunately is a perceived side effect when seeking to simplify concepts most adults and even a wide range of kids comprehend.
You can assert whatever you like though, as most, inclusive myself, see Aboriginals as humans, as equals, so kindly shove that false argument where it belongs.

Can you absolutely disprove there was a human race here before the Aboriginal people we know, see as equals, and own as a part of what makes us all Australian?
Are you willing to go out on a limb and discriminate against the original people of this land by disowning them from it?
Have you forgotten there was a time when the land masses were largely a single continent, so there was no requirement for land bridges for immigration?

Talking possibilities, is talking down?
Yet talking fantasy land made-up bullshit is not?

People who are sincere call a spade, a spade!
They refuse to buy into bullshit talk to appease emotional garbage.

You are making assumptions and utilising them to attack/discredit the messenger, as the points made are beyond your ability to discount.
I have listened to the stories of my people who have experienced outback communities and left angered at the wastage by both the government and the aboriginal people's own tribal leaders.
The manner tribal leaders and once again the government have addressed behavioural issues in this modern society also leaves me to this day at a point I wish for the ability to ring heads together until they get it, their selfish approaches are not working for the people or the country.
We vs you and I.
To move forward, there can not be you and I, only we!
You have no idea from the looks of your reply, where I stand and why I stand here.
You might want to get your head out of a book and actually get out into these communities and talk to their people, seeing first-hand the hardship they face daily
Hardships that spawn from evolutionary differences and the resources needed to enable a race to evolve from a tribal, into a modern global society.

Blaming a current generation for the actions of previous generations is not a productive mechanism towards greater compassion and support towards building the esteem of a race's people.
You still fail to comprehend how the current approach only ensures further division between 97% of the population and the Aboriginal people?

If you understand that, why did you use such a terrible analogy in the first place? It was an utterly ridiculous analogy that oversimplified the complexity of the issue and the nature of the people involved and you 100 percent deserved to be called on it.

I have done nothing but try to argue rationally... I have clearly stated my reasons for supporting the Voice on multiple occasions... I have addressed concerns people (including yourself) have raised and explained why I don't think they are issues. Once again you are being disingenuous. It is you who has tried to deflect from or exaggerate on the central points in just about every post you have spammed me with.

In this case, I was making a separate point that disrespectful language does your argument no favours, and it was a point well worth making.

I never said I know for a fact there weren't people on this continent prior to the arrival of Aboriginal people. What is known is they are the longest surviving human residents of this continent, and while anthropologists have raised theories, those theories are not given much credence in current scientific thinking and the current consensus among the scientific community is that Aboriginals were, in all likelihood the first Australians.

The term second nations is an insulting and deliberately reductionist term that implies others were here before them as a matter of certainty in order to diminish the ongoing impacts of colonialism on the Aboriginal people.

Don't deliberately use disrespectful language and then complain about getting called on it.

 

[Flanagun]

Translation. Please don't do a Flanagun on me. I don't have time to sit around and argue all day - just long enough to have the last word, no matter how ridiculous that last word is!

If you can point out a time Flanagun reply bombed one individual with more than 10 posts in a given morning, I will gladly apologise. I don't believe I have ever done that, and until you can prove otherwise, this is just another false equivalence.

Nothing about my arguments are ridiculous. If they were, you could slap me down by addressing those arguments, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.