Death2Litterers @ Death2Litterers @feddit.uk

Posts

0

Comments

20

Joined

2 yr. ago

https://feddit.uk/comment/4170453

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

How far is the train station?

Last mile delivery:

Ban all cars

Yes, I would. Would you not?

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.

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.

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.

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.

A referendum isn't needed to consult with people.

And people shouldn't be included/excluded from consultation just because of their race/culture/heritage.

Much the same way I feel about having seats on a bus reserved for people of a certain race and not others. I think dividing parliament along racial lines is racist and I don't support it.

It is indeed petty, and irrelevant.

I don't want to just 'recognise' harm that was done. I want to make Australia a better place for everyone living in it, and help anyone who is born into disadvantage, regardless of their family lineage. I do not believe that the voice does that.

I believe that all Australians should have representation to parliament. I don't believe that anybody should have a 'birthright' to more representation just because of the family lineage they were born into.

I believe that any time the government is going to introduce or change laws, they should consult with the people those laws will affect. Regardless of the race or culture of those people.

I believe that anybody who is disadvantaged should be helped, and anybody who needs healthcare or education or assistance should receive it, and I believe that anytime the government is going to introduce or change laws, they should consult with the people those laws will affect. Regardless of whether those people are of aboriginal heritage or not. I don't believe our laws should make special exceptions or treat people differently because of their race or culture or who their ancestors are.

I vote for politicians who support policies that I believe will make all Australians better off, and actively campaign to change the status quo in ways that I think are better. I also actively campaign against changing the status quo in ways that I think are worse. This is one of those ways.

You don't need the Voice to be able to respect aboriginal culture and history or pass along stories.

I also don't support statues glorifying slave traders.

Whether you call it race or cultural group, the argument doesn't change. I think all Australians should be treated equally by the law, and any Australian who is disadvantaged should receive help, regardless of whether they're part of one culture or another. Enshrining in the constitution that one cultural group gets extra representation to parliament that other cultural groups do not get is, in my view, a step away from the Australia that I want to live in.