ASeriesOfPoorChoices @ ASeriesOfPoorChoices @lemmy.world

When faced with a series of unfortunate events, I make a series of poor cho

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

1,771

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sure, that's lovely, except you haven't presented a single idea.

Spouting a bunch of nonsense and outright lies and following them up with multisyllabic words doesn't make you smart, just a cnt.

It would be nice to live in your fantasy world, but it's obvious that a) you don't understand what/how analogies are b) that not having a non-racist body not-enshrined in the constitution hasn't worked well so far, so we should try having a non-racist body not enshrined in the constitution, and vote yes.

You don't know what the word discrimination means, or what Aborigines go through, and both are kind of sad things about you.

Lastly "need": no, but it seems to be the best option out of any we've been presented so far. As such, we should vote yes. If you have something better for us to vote on, then you should have presented it.

If you did, you would acknowledge the difference between equality and equity.

Bwhahahah!

None of that is true. You fing muppet.

Let me guess, you believe you travel in a conveyance, you don't drive a car?

To be fair, it really was.

Depends where you are.

It's why ours do it without remorse. :-(

Their rockets were born without the first sin.

No, you don't want to help people. You want to seem like you help people without actually caring about them. If you did, you would acknowledge differences. You don't, so it's obvious you're acting in bad faith now.

"so listen to the"..."advisors"

Good idea. That's why you should vote yes. So there's dedicated advisors to listen to.

"We should help them, regardless of their race"

Yes. But different people need different help.

Racism is the idea that your race is better than others. That is not what I'm saying. I am saying that there are differences in the ethnicities in Australia, in both physical and cultural terms, which result in needing different actions to achieve the same results.

"The government should consult them"

So vote yes, so there is someone to consult.

Hey, remember that time Tony Abbott made himself Minister for Women?

inTereSTinG

That would make sense if the goal was to JUST drive in Malaysia.

Yes, it will tell you that you're an idiot. Just like all those cookers scared of vaccines. "JUST YOU WAIT! YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" 🤦 Muppets.

And that is exactly why you should vote yes. To help ensure that everything you've said happens.

Look, here is an example: women and Africans have different responses to various medicines and pain killers and such. Generally, historically, they get subpar care compared to white men. Not intentionally! It's just decades and centuries of data is from white male subjects.

And its baked into the mentality too (here's a link from the USA: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/racial-disparities-in-health-care/)

It's not exactly apples to apples here - but the basis the same. There are differences and inequities which an advisory board would be useful for, for achieving the goal of equality.

And really, that could also be your biggest misunderstanding of the world here (sorry for sounding confrontational, but hear me out): equality vs equity.

If the law is truly equal, then it is inequitable and unfair. This is because WE are unequal.

For example, if a speeding fine is $500 for everyone, regardless of the speed or the person, then it is equal. However, a rich person can speed as much as they want, and it's just part of the cost of driving for them. A poor person would have to sell their car to pay their debts. That's not equal punishment. Some countries take income into consideration when assigning speeding tickets as a way to balance the law.

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

So, your plan is to burn it all down and live in an anarchist commune?

A reminder, the PM is basically appointed. We don't get to vote on the PM, just the party, and they pick who is going to lead us.

As for a "bunch of money" - it's almost nothing.

If conservative voters actually cared about money, they wouldn't waste money on American nuclear subs we can't refuel, or broken French contracts, or spending more triple on a subpar telecommunications network that Labor is having to spend more on to fix.

No, it's not about money, and it isn't about elections.

So, why isn't she FOR the Voice? Explain that.

Or maybe because she knows that her lunacy will be blocked out once there's an advisory body telling us how crazy she is.

Worth reminding people that Murdoch - the Murdoch press you mentioned - is against it.

So either you agree with and support Murdoch, or you support Australia and vote yes.

Nothing you said is true.

That's a client function, not a Lemmy function.