Voice referendum

[Flanagun]

Delta Goodrem is engaged.
I’m so happy for her.

You know why? Coz she said yes!

 

[Doogie]

Delta Goodrem is engaged.
I’m so happy for her.

Not going to admit that you misrepresented a document you keep referring to? Sure.

Said all along, you have a decent reason for voting No - can accept that any day of the week.

 

[SexBomb]

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

Funny you think that as many yes people I've spoken to, have expressed that as the end goal.
Remove all traces of white man!

 

[SexBomb]

That's why they are called problems

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.

Yes, because comparing Aboriginal policy to Military detail is reasonable!
Why not send the rest of the world our military operations handbook whilst at it?
FFS, have you ever sat down at any great length with a mental health practitioner?
If not, it may be time you seriously consider it.

 

[SexBomb]

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.

According to RMIT.

How many Aboriginal departments are there?

The verdict. The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is unwarranted because Australia already has 109 Aboriginal agencies to represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Yes, but what about the community?
According to NACCHO, there is

145 members that operate Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations

alone.
145 community health organisations alone.
Beyond community health organisations is up to you to look up, as I've disproved your point, yet I would not be surprised to see similar numbers for non-health community organisations.

254 and numbers affecting Aboriginal Australians are still significantly outside normal parameters.
Places often run by Aboriginal people and those passionate about positive change.
Care to elaborate on what the problem there is?

 

[SexBomb]

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.

Why are you arguing in a manner that's indicative of that?

Did you read Nasheed's (yes it feels dirty citing something Nasheed has asserted in a serious manner) post that cites an article about pygmy indigenous Australians, and three waves of immigration before white man?
If fact, that would mean white man are fourth nations.
That's not offensive to say, is it?

 

[SexBomb]

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?

Yes, time you had your head checked.
You want to minimise the gap.
I desire to see the gap removed entirely.
But I am the evil, racist naysayer here :/

Why do you want a gap at all?

 

[SexBomb]

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

Many yes voters don't see that the majority are suffering, and this is a method of dividing us, to distract us from uniting, realising our power, and toppling them, the elite powerful minority that controls us.
A pity, as nothing will positively change beyond token gestures for either of us when we're fighting each other.

 

[SexBomb]

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.

White man, as it's ALL his fault!
Not that China, Holland or another colonial power would have occupied this country if the UK didn't, and very likely be a far worse outcome for the Aboriginal population.

 

[SexBomb]

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.

You full well know your language was deliberately chosen to insinuate that at the minimum.

Can't handle the heat, baby?

 

[SexBomb]

"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.

Are you seriously asserting that favouring a minority over a majority is fair treatment?
Disappointed.

As for percentages, lesbian females are the most abusive in domestic relationships and violence by percentage.
Where is the massive campaign from the government, with a policy targeting female abuse and violence?

 

[SexBomb]

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.

Why did I use a terrible analogy?
Asked the person it was aimed at, yet still failed to comprehend a terrible stripped-down version of the matter at hand!
Yet he still could not fathom why people generally did not take him seriously.
It left him awake for nights on end, never to realise that his comprehension was the issue due to his tunnel vision.

If this is your rational side, I for one am glad to not see your irrational side!

Did you not just argue above about dehumanising second nations language, in a manner to portray that it is disrespectful language, yet now are asserting you never argued against it?
Now you're arguing that it's insulting and delibearately reductionist, yet you're not arguing against it, right?

 

[SexBomb]

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.

Whatever argument put forth to you outside of your tunnel vision is ignored, as you're oblivious to it!
And you full well know that you spam threads, so don't play innocent victim!

 

[SexBomb]

Fair observation but think you've missed my point.
Its a fact that every opinion poll points at >45 years (and I am in that demographic myself) has a greater No vote and the converse is true below 45.
Its a very likely fact that every No rally is filled with mainly >45 years. Per below - not seeing too many under 45ers in the crowd.
Its a fact that watching demographics for sky, 2GB etc are highly slanted towards the over 45's.
And its most definitely a fact that from day 1 - sky news etc. have pushed a No vote. Hard. And the Yes vote is only talked about as a critique. Whereas (to use your example - ABC) publish both sides of the argument (although they do slant towards the Yes).

View attachment 82460

Sorry you took this personally. But this is political science where you look at the trends, not the specific individuals. There are exceptions in all things but otherwise, my point stands. Why does the younger generation who have to live with these decisions the longest have their opinion and desire eroded by the older generation? Yes, its a democracy and all votes are equal but why, as older generation, are we not supporting the wishes of the younger generation? Do we know better? One could argue if we did, it wouldn't be a mess and require this level of change.

Calling me ageist? Excellent - I'm apparently putting shit on my clique lol.

Bottom left alone, 2/4 persons in it look 45 and under.

 

[SexBomb]

Flanagun, there are people in society that are not left behind but want to be left behind.

Many years ago I went to work at port Hedland / Karratha... Stayed in a hotel which was like a compound. I couldnt believe it. they warned me not to venture out as I would be robbed and beaten up by drunk indigenous people. It was a very much segregated community. One day I ignored the warning, went to the local shops and as warned, An all in brawl breaks out with drunk indigenous people beating each other to a pulp.

There was large mining companies which had quotas to fill. For every 10 workers one had to be indigenous, but they could no longer employ as they could not find an indigenous worker that would be agreeable to work. So they had to basically convince an indigenous worker to sign up, the company pays them a wage to be on the books and they are told to go away do whatever you want, just so they could hire more workers and meet the quotas. incredible.

In Sydney I thought for the most part, people mix and largely treat one another with some sort of respect but out in regional communities, it was a huge eye opener for me. there is many indigenous that just don't want to work, there is no fixing this. So you propose to give them a voice?

For the many hard working honest indigenous folk, they don't need a special voice, they get along and earn their way.

If you dont know, VOTE NO!

The yes camp will argue irrelevant isolated incident and not to be taken into consideration, that is if indeed you're telling the truth!
As it is easier to ignore all of the underlying issues, and cherry-pick some to justify policy change, that very likely will benefit a minority, at the expense of the majority that actually sorely needs it.

 

[SexBomb]

80 per cent of Indigenous people support the Voice. I guess you only care for the opinions of Indigenous home owners lol

So only some Aboriginal people's voices count?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Nope. I'm saying it's not 26 pages. It's one page.

Not going to admit that you misrepresented a document you keep referring to? Sure.

Said all along, you have a decent reason for voting No - can accept that any day of the week.

I disagree in relation to your statement of misrepresentation, but hey, we are in a democracy, we’ll agree to disagree on this one I guess.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You know why? Coz she said yes!

More importantly, are you happy Kyle?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Nope. I'm saying it's not 26 pages. It's one page.

How silly of me, your right, apparently it’s not 26 pages but 18 instead.

Megan Davis said so…

Voice architect said it is actually an 'anchor' to a treaty process

A key architect of the Voice to Parliament previously claimed the Uluru Statement was '18 pages' long and that the Voice was an 'anchor' to an eventual treaty.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Are you seriously asserting that favouring a minority over a majority is fair treatment?
Disappointed.

As for percentages, lesbian females are the most abusive in domestic relationships and violence by percentage.
Where is the massive campaign from the government, with a policy targeting female abuse and violence?

In response to the first part, yes. It is fair treatment if the minority is struggling more. If one person is starving and the other is well fed, you won't give them equal food.

As for the second part, I would need to see the statistics first. It's possible you're right, but I haven't seen research to support that. The only research I could find said that lesbian relationships are as abusive as heterosexual relationships, but with a difference. In lesbian relationships it tends to be both women that are abusive. In heterosexual relationships it's much more common to be the man that's abusive. And heterosexual males are the highest abusers (much higher than lesbians), followed by lesbians, then heterosexual females (much lower than all)