Death2Litterers

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

No worries. Ban the trucks and get an electric bike.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

How far is the train station?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Last mile delivery:

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, I would. Would you not?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you did, you would acknowledge differences.

Yeah, that's right mate, I don't acknowledge differences. I think all people are exactly the same, down to their fingerprints. I don't care about anybody because there are zero differences at all. You got me. Real sharp you are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If some group of individuals require substantially different medical treatment because their biology is that different to everybody else's, then the people who should be consulted are scientific and medical experts, not more politicians. You do not need to enshrine a racist body into the constitution to be able to meet the different needs of different people.

Racism is the idea that your race is better than others

Racism is descriminating on the basis of race, which this proposed ammendment would do, and you appear to support.

So vote yes, so there is someone to consult.

You do not need a racist advisory body enshrined in the constitution to be able to consult with people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

women and Africans have different responses to various medicines and pain killers and such

So listen to scientific and medical advisors who are the people best suited to identify these concerns and propose solutions.

The point is to highlight: equal is not always fair. Equal is not always equitable.

The solution isn't to make the law that Aboriginals pay lower speeding fines or that white folk pay higher speeding fines though, is it? The solution is to make fines scale with the offender's wealth, not their race.

If somebody needs help, I don't believe we should take their race into consideration. We should just help them, regardless of their race.

If the government is going to make a policy or change the law, I don't believe that somebody's race should decide whether or not the government consults with them first. The government should consult with them regardless of their race.

I think your misunderstanding of the world is that you think racism is a good idea. I personally don't agree with you.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could they have just tried to do so without a constitutional change? Probably.

Not probably. Definitely.

If the concern is that a body not enshrined in the constitution might be abolished by a future government, the same future government would just shrink a constitutionally established voice down to the bare minimum and ignore it, rendering it useless. Either way, the only real solution is to not elect shit governments in the future.

But my opinion is that it would provide overall more help than harm

I personally don't believe it will provide help than harm. I believe the Voice a step towards an Australia in which people of different races are treated differently and racial discrimination is enshrined in our laws, and that is not something I desire.

view more: next ›