- Joined
- 28 August 2022
- Posts
- 7,024
- Reactions
- 11,359
One country and only one flag. A definite NO from me has always been and willnot change that view that i hold.
One country and only one flag. A definite NO from me has always been and willnot change that view that i hold.I have been 50/50 on the Voice for most of time, a few time I swayed over to the Yes & No side, and at one time I was a definite Yes.
This morning, I am 95% No.
My decision comes after reading the morning paper and a couple of ABC articles, having a discussion and listening to a few work experiences.
The turning point for me was this: A friend works for a temping agency which lead to employment at a large volunteer organisation involved with the homeless, NDIS and disadvantaged groups. One of the volunteers was leaving, she is a part time artist that uses her indigenous background to paint, gave a piece of her art to the office as a thank you and goodbye gift. The painting was put up for all who entered the reception area to see. Several months later, a woman that represents local indigenous people receiving help from the organisation came and introduced herself. She saw the painting and became very agitated, telling people to remove that painting immediately, because there must be balance. Female art needs a male equivalent next to it from the same mob. The painting was removed and put in storage.
A few weeks later a discussion between the said indigenous woman and a long time volunteer lead to the volunteer being reprimanded for using the word mob in a conversation about a group of regulars. She was told 'you can't use that term to describe us, only we can, never use that word again.'
And that was what turned me.
If someone can com in and start dictating terms and what words can be used, putting fear into people, confusing the lines of what can and can't be said in a free country, what will happen if the Voice gets up in parliament?
I don't want to see Australia turned into a country of two, them and us.
I know lots of Vietnamese refugees who came here dead broke, no skills that were recognised, whose kids are now top end doctors, lawyers, etc. It's achievable in one generation.Fully agree but I'll argue that any link to race is tenuous at best.
It's a problem applying to many, it's not something limited to Aboriginals. It applies to them yes, but it applies to others as well so logically we'd aim to fix the problem of people being trapped in poverty rather than limiting that only to a particular group.
The "we have to start with someone" argument is always about division rather than fixing the problem. Whether it's poverty, health, crime either as perpetrator or victim, education or indeed anything if the intent is genuinely to fix it well then aim the measures at whoever's in that situation. There's no need to add conditions that exclude some based on factors that aren't about the actual problem, if there's a need to limit it then the severity of the problem is the logical criteria.
Even within the same generation, the same person, a huge leap can be obtained.I know lots of Vietnamese refugees who came here dead broke, no skills that were recognised, whose kids are now top end doctors, lawyers, etc. It's achievable in one generation.
Yes I think there needs to be an audit of where all the money has gone.This is typical and the reason why I think the Voice will do nothing except enrich a very few:
So much easier to cry poor me and them, stick out the mit and sit on thy bum and do zilch.I know lots of Vietnamese refugees who came here dead broke, no skills that were recognised, whose kids are now top end doctors, lawyers, etc. It's achievable in one generation.
Not sure some would ever be capable of it with the victim mentality floating around. Big problem with being stuck in the cycle. Something needs to be done. But not this pandering bs that goes on.
Its about time we created an equal society where skin colour is not mentioned because it is irrelevant.
Some people continue to have a giant inferiority complex because of their skin colour, they should stop trying to live as they did 20,000 years ago and recognise the benefits that modern society can bring them. Either that or they can continue to be eternal victims, and not advance anywhere as a result.
I know lots of Vietnamese refugees who came here dead broke, no skills that were recognised, whose kids are now top end doctors, lawyers, etc. It's achievable in one generation.
Not sure some would ever be capable of it with the victim mentality floating around. Big problem with being stuck in the cycle. Something needs to be done. But not this pandering bs that goes on.
Skin colour has nothing to do with it, while we as a community use lack of effort as an excuse for lack of achievement, nothing will ever change and it has nothing to do with colour.Even within the same generation, the same person, a huge leap can be obtained.
I mentioned on another thread someone being employed as a cleaner and ending up as a qualified technician still working for the same company.
I know others who've gone from effectively broke to actual millionaires.
Someone I went to school with ended up making a career out of working in supermarkets. Started out collecting trolleys from the car park and eventually ended up in management after having done every job in between.
Another I know took a temporary, six week, government job. Ended up working 20 years in the Public Service and was given the "golden handshake" when he retired.
Common element with all those three is it wasn't some grand plan. It was just taking the opportunity that was there at the time no matter how humble it was and pursuing whatever doors it opened.
Key thing is they didn't take the "victim" approach but rather, they grabbed with both hands the opportunities that were available to them.
This is about your rationale for voting.Tell you what, you write me a novel about your life and post it on this page and I’ll read it before answering your question.
This is about your rationale for voting.
You changed to 95% "no" on a matter that had absolutely nothing to do with the referendum.
Try to stay on topic and please don't try to play the man with me.
A piece of legislation that only applies to a single race, is by its very deffinition, "about race".Now race discrimination commissioner Chin Tan has urged for a cool down in debate on the Voice, saying if race became the focus of debate it would give confidence to some people "to embark on a journey which they ought not to".
"For [the Human Rights Commission] the Voice is not about race," Mr Tan told the ABC.
What does that have to do with the Voice?Its about time we created an equal society where skin colour is not mentioned because it is irrelevant.
You forgot about the fact you are talking about people who are systemically disadvantaged, but you think it's their fault. As I keep saying, the lack of logic that exists in the "no" voting cohort is mind numbing.Some people continue to have a giant inferiority complex because of their skin colour, they should stop trying to live as they did 20,000 years ago and recognise the benefits that modern society can bring them. Either that or they can continue to be eternal victims, and not advance anywhere as a result.
The Voice recognises Australia's first inhabitants, and these people clearly were not white. There appears to be zero logic to your point as the purpose of the Voice is to enable indigenous people - those who suffer the many disadvantages I describe several posts earlier - to have a grass roots say in improving their circumstances.A piece of legislation that only applies to a single race, is by its very definition, "about race".
I think that people who refuse to understand what the Voice is about - those like you in this instance - are doing a great job in "deflection".Geez, they wonder why the support for the voice referendum outcome is falling.
Mick
I commented on your rationale for voting in the upcoming referendum, and you have again avoided that and preferred to play the man.And you presume to know everything that I know, and then believe to know me.
My request to you was in jest, just like your username.
Go and get a life, leave the decisions to the Australian public.
I commented on your rationale for voting in the upcoming referendum, and you have again avoided that and preferred to play the man.
I simply look at what is posted and try to determine if the points made are relevant or have merit.
Given that there was nothing relevant to what the Voice proposes in your post, I was curious as to how a reasoned decision to vote "no" was derived.
I did not mention colour, I mentioned race.The Voice recognises Australia's first inhabitants, and these people clearly were not white.
the point I made was about the Commissioner trying to pretend a piece of legislation based on race has got to be about race.There appears to be zero logic to your point as the purpose of the Voice is to enable indigenous people - those who suffer the many disadvantages I describe several posts earlier - to have a grass roots say in improving their circumstances.
Straw man argument as usual. Has nothing to do with the topic, but it suits your style,Maybe NDIS is another version of "racism" in your eyes?
And I think people who who are so insufferably arrogant are incapable of rational thought.I think that people who refuse to understand what the Voice is about - those like you in this instance - are doing a great job in "deflection".
You forgot about the fact you are talking about people who are systemically disadvantaged
On another forum a person who was working on a wildlife reserve complained that when they went to the local community clinic with Covid the anti virals they were given were almost out of date.I think you need to provide some evidence of that.
Yes aboriginal people are over represented in prisons, but can you show that is a result of discrimination rather than a disrespect for the law ?
As far as I know aboriginal people are entitled to the same welfare benefits as anyone else. Are you saying that is not the case ?
In terms of conditions in aboriginal settlements, they are not forced to live there. If they came closer to where services exist they would find them easier to access.
Which race were our first inhabitants? What colour were the the invaders?I did not mention colour, I mentioned race.
I know you know how to use google, go look up the difference between skin colour and race.
As I said, there was zero logic to your point. Why repeat it?the point I made was about the Commissioner trying to pretend a piece of legislation based on race has got to be about race.
Nothing about disadvantage, nothing about improving circumstances etc etc .
On the contrary, as you seem unaware of basic logic.Straw man argument as usual. Has nothing to do with the topic, but it suits your style,
None of your points were valid, yet you still believe you understand the issue.And I think people who who are so insufferably arrogant are incapable of rational thought.
Mick
There are tens of thousands of pages of history that back up my point.I think you need to provide some evidence of that.
I can show it is a result of systemic disadvantage that leads to poor educational attainment, poor job prospects and reversion to alcohol and drug abuse.Yes aboriginal people are over represented in prisons, but can you show that is a result of discrimination rather than a disrespect for the law ?
Exactly who will be paying to relocate them and buy or provide them housing?In terms of conditions in aboriginal settlements, they are not forced to live there. If they came closer to where services exist they would find them easier to access.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?