"Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?"

Who is afraid to answer this question? So far we have Mothra and Phil here:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/160#160

Other likely candidates are John Smith, Brian and Karnal.

Please add to the list.

No-one is afraid, Fleadriver, It's just a really stupid question that if one asks it, they give an aura of not being worth responding to.

;D

Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:27am:

"Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?" Who is afraid to answer this question? So far we have Mothra and Phil here: https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/160#160 Other likely candidates are John Smith, Brian and Karnal. Please add to the list.

I do not believe the Aboriginal Flag is discriminating against anyone....So until you define what is discrimitory about the Aboriginal Flag nobody knows whay you are ranting about....Tell us why you think the Aboriginal Flag is racist Freedickhead!!!

I also answered you race baiting bullshit on the other thread Freedickhead....Never was the answer....Care to answer why you believe the Aboriginal Flag is discriminating against anyone Freedickhead???

8-) 8-) 8-)

Are you saying you don't understand the question Phil? There is nothing in there about flags.

Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:40am:

Are you saying you don't understand the question Phil? There is nothing in there about flags. Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?

If a law is passed or a body is formed or a grant created that advantages women, is it sexist to men?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:40am:

Are you saying you don't understand the question Phil? There is nothing in there about flags. Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?

Never is the answer for the upteenth time....So what are you claiming is discrimination Freedickhead....Another race baiting bullshit thread from the resident racist to bash boongs....What exactly is the Government being discrimitory about Freedickhead....Clarify you rant so people can determine what it is you are so but hurt about???

::) ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:40am:

Are you saying you don't understand the question Phil? There is nothing in there about flags. Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?

Never

Where is the Government discriminating against anyone Freedickhead....I have given you my answer again and again....You keep avoiding giving an answer to clarify you rant???

::) ::) ::)

Quote:

Never is the answer for the upteenth time

Why was that so difficult for you? And where have you answered previously? All I see is you being evasive.


Quote:

I have given you my answer again and again

Congratulations, you posted the same thing twice in a row.


Quote:

So what are you claiming is discrimination

I have made all sorts of claims about racial discrimination on this site. Are you really not aware of a single one?

mothra wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:33am:

Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men?

Obviously. By definition. Ipso facto.
A law advantaging one sex means it is disadvantaging the other ON THE BASIS OF sex.

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:52am:

Quote: Never is the answer for the upteenth time Why was that so difficult for you?

Is my question difficult for you, Fleadriver?

I've asked it several times now.

Forgotten what it was? Allow me to remind you:

"If a law is passed or a body is formed or a grant created that advantages women, is it sexist to men?"

Frank wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:55am:

mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:33am: Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men? Obviously. By definition. Ipso facto. A law advantaging one sex means it is disadvantaging the other ON THE BASIS OF sex.

And if the law is about uterine cancer?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:40am:

Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?

So, Socratic 20 questions, then!

What is discrimination in itself?

What is race in itself?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:52am:

Quote: Never is the answer for the upteenth time Why was that so difficult for you? And where have you answered previously? All I see is you being evasive. I have answered your bullshit question multiple times Freedickhead!!! https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/105#119 [quote]I have given you my answer again and again

Congratulations, you posted the same thing twice in a row.


Quote:

So what are you claiming is discrimination

I have made all sorts of claims about racial discrimination on this site. Are you really not aware of a single one?[/quote]

So you are race baiting and not prepared to clarify what it is you are actually bitching about....You pathetic racist piece of sh!t???

I am done with you Freedickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

Perhaps Freedickhead is talking about banning people from certain countries based on their race....We know it is not about the Aboriginal flag....Freedickhead will not say???

::) ::) ::)

What is discrimination in itself?

Is it evil in itself?

Is justifiable discrimination a thing?

What is justice in itself?

Is it (justifiable) discrimination to unify culturally and linguistically disparate peoples by cultivating a sense of common identity?

Do nations justifiably discriminate?

Does a nation/country have the right to (justifiably) discriminate between citizens and non-citizens?

mothra wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:57am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:52am: Quote: Never is the answer for the upteenth time Why was that so difficult for you? Is my question difficult for you, Fleadriver? I've asked it several times now. Forgotten what it was? Allow me to remind you: "If a law is passed or a body is formed or a grant created that advantages women, is it sexist to men?"

If it discriminates on the basis of sex, it is sexist.

For example, if a man loses a job to a woman who is less qualified, less experienced, less hard working etc, because of a deliberate sex discrimination policy, that man has been discriminated against. On the basis of sex. So it is also sexist.

You cannot fight discrimination by creating even more discrimination. No matter how you try to spin it.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 10:09am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:52am: Quote: Never is the answer for the upteenth time Why was that so difficult for you? And where have you answered previously? All I see is you being evasive. I have answered your bullshit question multiple times Freedickhead!!! https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/105#119 [quote]I have given you my answer again and again Congratulations, you posted the same thing twice in a row. [quote]So what are you claiming is discrimination

I have made all sorts of claims about racial discrimination on this site. Are you really not aware of a single one?[/quote]

So you are race baiting and not prepared to clarify what it is you are actually bitching about....You pathetic racist piece of sh!t???

I am done with you Freedickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)[/quote]

It was a question Phil. What on earth made you think I was referring to something specific with such a general question?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:27am:

"Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?"

Short answer: no.

BUT

Studies have shown a postive correlation between poverty, family dysfunction, and youth crime.

And guess what.....blacks in Oz are most egregiously over-represented in those stats, so government intervention to fix the problem of generational/systemic/cultural-historical  poverty among blacks will require government to "discriminate on the basis of race" to eliminate the gap.


Quote:

Who is afraid to answer this question?

Your limited capacity for analysis  of complex socio-economic disadvantage explains why people replying to this thread have accused you of 'race baiting'...

Quote:

And guess what.....blacks in Oz are most egregiously over-represented in those stats, so government intervention to fix the problem of generational/systemic/cultural-historical  poverty among blacks  will  require governement to "discriminate on the basis of race" to eliminate the gap.

Do you have any evidence that this works? Do handouts fix learned helplessness? People always seem to assume the problem is solved once some money is handed over, then a generation later are bemoaning the fact that the same problem still exists.

Also, does does something like racist bans from national parks solve anything? As far as I can tell it has only made the local aborigines more prone to violence.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 10:09am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:52am: Quote: Never is the answer for the upteenth time Why was that so difficult for you? And where have you answered previously? All I see is you being evasive. I have answered your bullshit question multiple times Freedickhead!!! https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/105#119 [quote]I have given you my answer again and again Congratulations, you posted the same thing twice in a row. [quote]So what are you claiming is discrimination

I have made all sorts of claims about racial discrimination on this site. Are you really not aware of a single one?[/quote]

So you are race baiting and not prepared to clarify what it is you are actually bitching about....You pathetic racist piece of sh!t???

I am done with you Freedickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)[/quote]

That's a relief .....

Simple answer - if these people with flags want to not be Australian but somehow 'co-sovereign', they are welcome to hand in their citizenship and their dole cards etc and go and make their way in the traditional ways....  all that cunning Pascoe aquaculture, agriculture, storage of seeds and such and trade should suffice to make them all happy, healthy and wise...... gonna be a bit hard when they try predatory raiding on 'other tribes' to steal what they have to survive, though.  And they can only do that on Open Range... not on other people's land........

There are laws  against that...... the other tribes might not like it - just look at Alice Springs!  Jeez - two teenagers in detention for a home invasion and assault on a new mother and newborn baby, leaving the baby with a skull fracture and brain bleeding... must be worth two damp lettuce leaves from the 'judge' ... but that'll all change when they do a Hamas and cross the border from The Park and invade, rob and steal and assault....  THEN justice will prevail against criminal Invaders... just like Gaza and such...

I reckon they'd be better off accepting the Two State Solution and heading off onto The Park to be under their own control and their own laws and such..... I think the penalty for someone caught raiding and killing another tribe is an instant spearing or something.... unto death..... but that'll just help keep the population down to the manageable level it was pre-1788 - so few that they were hardly noticeable on the land, let along do anything to or with it apart from burning the poo out of it at random without even  firestick farming that land....

Back to the cultural roots!!  And let's not forget the Golden Era of Professor Pascoe...

They're eating the roos
They're eating the snakes
They're eating the fauna
Of the people who LIVE .... HERE...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:12am:

if these people with flags want to not be Australian but somehow 'co-sovereign'

Are you also discriminating? Based on nationalistic identity?

Define discrimination.

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 10:44am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:09am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:52am: Quote: Never is the answer for the upteenth time Why was that so difficult for you? And where have you answered previously? All I see is you being evasive. I have answered your bullshit question multiple times Freedickhead!!! https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/105#119 [quote]I have given you my answer again and again Congratulations, you posted the same thing twice in a row. [quote]So what are you claiming is discrimination I have made all sorts of claims about racial discrimination on this site. Are you really not aware of a single one?

So you are race baiting and not prepared to clarify what it is you are actually bitching about....You pathetic racist piece of sh!t???

I am done with you Freedickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)[/quote]

It was a question Phil. What on earth made you think I was referring to something specific with such a general question?[/quote]

The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling???

::) ::) ::)

Like I said Phil, there are plenty of examples of me pointing about both race and sex discrimination on this site. Not sure why it gets you so worked up.

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:02am:

Quote: And guess what.....blacks in Oz are most egregiously over-represented in those stats, so government intervention to fix the problem of generational/systemic/cultural-historical  poverty among blacks  will  require governement to "discriminate on the basis of race" to eliminate the gap. Do you have any evidence that this works?

Of course not; eradicating  systemic/generational/cultural-historical poverty, via mandating above poverty participation for all  hasn't been instituted yet.


Quote:

Do handouts fix learned helplessness?

No, they entrench it via the poverty industry aka  'welfare(!) safety net'.


Quote:

People always seem to assume the problem is solved once some money is handed over, then a generation later are bemoaning the fact that the same problem still exists.

Exactly....courtesy of gruesome, mainstream neoclassical NAIRU  economics requiring the 'welfare safety net' to maintain 'social security'...a failure (as you say), as can be seen in the increasing youth crime stats.

Now...back to "racial discrimination" .... and your  concealed 'race-baiting', condemned by others replying to this thread.


 

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:19am:

You were just trolling???

He is leveraging the inevitable lexical limitation and/or ambiguity of these words (discrimination) to run you down a rabbit hole.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:18am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:12am: if these people with flags want to not be Australian but somehow 'co-sovereign' Are you also discriminating? Based on nationalistic identity? Define discrimination.

Nah - read IF - it's a big word I know... I'm just offering them a viable option in accordance with their own demands for sovereignty and for their own state etc.

We all know what discrimination is - and it crosses all borders - it is not a purely White privilege ... anyone can display discrimination ...

mothra wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:58am:

Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:33am: Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men? Obviously. By definition. Ipso facto. A law advantaging one sex means it is disadvantaging the other ON THE BASIS OF sex. And if the law is about uterine cancer?

A very stupid attempt of arguing sex discrimination.

Men don't have uterses so it has nothing to do with advantage or disadvantage for men or women.


If you want to argue intelligently you have to think of something that can be equally attained or obtained by anyone but the law singles out one category for advantage/disadvantage.


.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:36am:

We all know what discrimination is - and it crosses all borders - it is not a purely White privilege ... anyone can display discrimination ...

The default deflection.

"We all know what I mean by discrimination".

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:22am:

Like I said Phil, there are plenty of examples of me pointing about both race and sex discrimination on this site. Not sure why it gets you so worked up.

I don't like racists Freediver....You are a racist....Why is that so hard to comprehend???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:19am:

The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::)

What children are taken away on the basis of race?  (note that 'are' - you can't dwell in the past forever and continue to cloud the truth of those times) ..

Which Aborigines are denied legal entry to Australia?  That's a new one... of course if they go for the Two State Solution - their own private Homeland - they'll need visas to enter Australia though, and work permits ...

Innocent Aborigines are placed in detention centres based on race?  When does that happen?  Asylum seekers are not placed in detention based on race - they are placed in detention pending full processing... if a Pom comes here seeking asylum, he/she will be held in detention until processed as well... it's not 'race-specific' or 'race-excluding'.

You mean the voice was discriminatory?  Special laws for special people.  That's a relief to see you understand that.

https://y.yarn.co/8c549740-aa02-448b-9b80-bf61d63bf5bf_text.gif

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:27am:

"Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?" Who is afraid to answer this question? So far we have Mothra and Phil here: https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/160#160 Other likely candidates are John Smith, Brian and Karnal. Please add to the list.

since you wanted to know what I think I'll tell you.

You're an idiot who doesn't know what discrimination is. Only an utter moron would argue that creating a policy to help the disadvantaged is discrimination.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:40am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:36am: We all know what discrimination is - and it crosses all borders - it is not a purely White privilege ... anyone can display discrimination ... The default deflection. "We all know what I mean by discrimination".

We've gone past that  long ago... keep up in class....

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:52am:

Quote: Never is the answer for the upteenth time Why was that so difficult for you?

The only one finding it difficult is you. He said Never the very first time you asked in the other thread. .. you ignored it and kept telling him he was afraid to answer

mix your sleeping pills up with your idiot pills again FD? ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:44am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:27am: "Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?" Who is afraid to answer this question? So far we have Mothra and Phil here: https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/160#160 Other likely candidates are John Smith, Brian and Karnal. Please add to the list. since you wanted to know what I think I'll tell you. You're an idiot who doesn't know what discrimination is. Only an utter moron would argue that creating a policy to help the disadvantaged is discrimination.

Now THAT - Meisty - is 'deflection' from the subject matter!!!

Smithy!  Well - we'll ship all the disadvantaged out to places where the jobs grow free and they can cease to be disadvantaged, eh?

Which exactly 'policies' were you thinking of?

.... this is like spearing fish in a Pascoe fish trap - oops ... sorry ... aquaculture business conglomerate ....

what deflection?> He asked what I thought, I told him

are you daft as well as an eternal victim?

Frank wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:36am:

mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:58am: Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:33am: Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men? Obviously. By definition. Ipso facto. A law advantaging one sex means it is disadvantaging the other ON THE BASIS OF sex. And if the law is about uterine cancer? A very stupid attempt of arguing sex discrimination. Men don't have uterses so it has nothing to do with advantage or disadvantage for men or women. If you want to argue intelligently you have to think of something that can be equally attained or obtained by anyone but the law singles out one category for advantage/disadvantage. .

Oh so you do understand that there are different needs within the community and addressing some needs does not mean discriminating against those who are not represented by the addressing of those needs.

Well done, fruitbat! I think you've grown as a person today.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:45am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:40am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:36am: We all know what discrimination is - and it crosses all borders - it is not a purely White privilege ... anyone can display discrimination ... The default deflection. "We all know what I mean by discrimination". We've gone past that  long ago... keep up in class....

Then you'd know that, say, the justice system often discriminates (arguably justifiably) based on circumstances, then.

Words have limitations... 'Discrimination' in itself can be defined in multiple terms such that it requires qualifiers like 'justifiable',  'wrongful', 'positive', 'negative'... etc.

And even then, you will need to defend your definition.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:40am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:22am: Like I said Phil, there are plenty of examples of me pointing about both race and sex discrimination on this site. Not sure why it gets you so worked up. I don't like racists Freediver....You are a racist....Why is that so hard to comprehend??? :-? :-? :-?

What makes you think I am a racist? Is it merely because you get your panties in a bunch over what I post?

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:26am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:02am: Quote: And guess what.....blacks in Oz are most egregiously over-represented in those stats, so government intervention to fix the problem of generational/systemic/cultural-historical  poverty among blacks  will  require governement to "discriminate on the basis of race" to eliminate the gap. Do you have any evidence that this works? Of course not; eradicating  systemic/generational/cultural-historical poverty, via mandating above poverty participation for all

You want to force the Aborigines to work?

Quote:

He said Never the very first time you asked in the other thread.

No he didn't John.

mothra wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:49am:

Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:36am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:58am: Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:33am: Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men? Obviously. By definition. Ipso facto. A law advantaging one sex means it is disadvantaging the other ON THE BASIS OF sex. And if the law is about uterine cancer? A very stupid attempt of arguing sex discrimination. Men don't have uterses so it has nothing to do with advantage or disadvantage for men or women. If you want to argue intelligently you have to think of something that can be equally attained or obtained by anyone but the law singles out one category for advantage/disadvantage. . Oh so you do understand that there are different needs within the community and addressing some needs does not mean discriminating against those who are not represented by the addressing of those needs. Well done, fruitbat! I think you've grown as a person today.

;D ;D ;D

So being Aborigine is like uterine cancer.

Frank wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 12:36pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:49am: Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:36am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:58am: Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:33am: Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men? Obviously. By definition. Ipso facto. A law advantaging one sex means it is disadvantaging the other ON THE BASIS OF sex. And if the law is about uterine cancer? A very stupid attempt of arguing sex discrimination. Men don't have uterses so it has nothing to do with advantage or disadvantage for men or women. If you want to argue intelligently you have to think of something that can be equally attained or obtained by anyone but the law singles out one category for advantage/disadvantage. . Oh so you do understand that there are different needs within the community and addressing some needs does not mean discriminating against those who are not represented by the addressing of those needs. Well done, fruitbat! I think you've grown as a person today. ;D ;D ;D So being Aborigine is like uterine cancer.

Do you practice being a complete idiot?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:50am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:45am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:40am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:36am: We all know what discrimination is - and it crosses all borders - it is not a purely White privilege ... anyone can display discrimination ... The default deflection. "We all know what I mean by discrimination". We've gone past that  long ago... keep up in class.... Then you'd know that, say, the justice system often discriminates (arguably justifiably) based on circumstances, then. Words have limitations... 'Discrimination' in itself can be defined in multiple terms such that it requires qualifiers like 'justifiable',  'wrongful', 'positive', 'negative'... etc. And even then, you will need to defend your definition.

And can be further qualified into definitional terms such as: 'positive justifiable discrimination' and 'negative justifiable discrimination'.

mothra wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 12:41pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 12:36pm: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:49am: Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:36am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:58am: Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:33am: Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men? Obviously. By definition. Ipso facto. A law advantaging one sex means it is disadvantaging the other ON THE BASIS OF sex. And if the law is about uterine cancer? A very stupid attempt of arguing sex discrimination. Men don't have uterses so it has nothing to do with advantage or disadvantage for men or women. If you want to argue intelligently you have to think of something that can be equally attained or obtained by anyone but the law singles out one category for advantage/disadvantage. . Oh so you do understand that there are different needs within the community and addressing some needs does not mean discriminating against those who are not represented by the addressing of those needs. Well done, fruitbat! I think you've grown as a person today. ;D ;D ;D So being Aborigine is like uterine cancer. Do you practice being a complete idiot?

Well, it was YOUR analogy.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 12:57pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:50am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:45am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:40am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:36am: We all know what discrimination is - and it crosses all borders - it is not a purely White privilege ... anyone can display discrimination ... The default deflection. "We all know what I mean by discrimination". We've gone past that  long ago... keep up in class.... Then you'd know that, say, the justice system often discriminates (arguably justifiably) based on circumstances, then. Words have limitations... 'Discrimination' in itself can be defined in multiple terms such that it requires qualifiers like 'justifiable',  'wrongful', 'positive', 'negative'... etc. And even then, you will need to defend your definition. And can be further qualified into definitional terms such as: 'positive justifiable discrimination' and 'negative justifiable discrimination'.

Let us not confuse discern and discriminate.

Discrimination is negative treatment based on an attribute.  Discerning difference is not in itself a negative treatment.

Positive discrimination is a confused neologism. A clumsy shorthand, like climate action or trans women are real women or womyn.

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 12:32pm:

Quote: He said Never the very first time you asked in the other thread. No he didn't John.

Sure he did, reply 119 .. he even put it in big bold letters for you but you were busy pretending you are a victim if aborigines get to fly their flag :D

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:00am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:27am: "Do you think the government should be discriminating on the basis of race?" Short answer: no. BUT Studies have shown a postive correlation between poverty, family dysfunction, and youth crime. And guess what.....blacks in Oz are most egregiously over-represented in those stats, so government intervention to fix the problem of generational/systemic/cultural-historical  poverty among blacks will require government to "discriminate on the basis of race" to eliminate the gap. Quote: Who is afraid to answer this question? Your limited capacity for analysis  of complex socio-economic disadvantage explains why people replying to this thread have accused you of 'race baiting'...

What happens to the non-Aborigines poor? The non-Aborigines youth criminals?

The term 'discernment' can be used as a synonym or a euphemism for 'discrimination', although usually disingenuously.

To say that 'babies discriminate among ethnicities, preferring their mother's ethnic features over all others', is not to say that babies' discrimination over ethnic features is in itself negative treatment based on an attribute - at least not in a cognitive or moral sense.

The term 'positive discrimination' is decades old. It would only be a 'neologism' for those of us older than 100.

Not that a term's being a neologism is necessarily a negative - all complex terms in use today were once neologisms.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 2:38pm:

The term 'discernment' can be used as a synonym or a euphemism for 'discrimination', although usually disingenuously. To say that 'babies discriminate among ethnicities, preferring their mother's ethnic features over all others', is not to say that babies' discrimination over ethnic features is in itself negative treatment based on an attribute - at least not in a cognitive or moral sense. The term 'positive discrimination' is decades old. It would only be a 'neologism' for those of us older than 100. Not that a term's being a neologism is necessarily a negative - all complex terms in use today were once neologisms.

Discrimination has a connotation of preferment. Discern just means noticing difference without any connotation of preference.

You can discern the difference between two things without any hint of preference for either.

A term often used in advertising refers to the 'discerning customer'.

It usually refers to customers with good taste and style who would prefer one product over others.

So, yes, it can have an obvious connotation of preference, as can discrimination.

We can all positively discern and negatively discern, as we can with discrimination.

Our discernment can be justifiable or not, as it can with discrimination.

Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 3:50pm:

Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist?

Access to sites should not be based on race - that is racist.

Obtaining employment should be based on merit not race or gender.

Once you move from the naive use of terms like discrimination, and stop thinking that "we all know what I mean by discrimination" or "we all instinctively know what it is, so why define it?', you can explore its necessary qualifications, such as justifiable discrimination, or positive/negative justifiable/wrongful discrimination.

Is it necessarily true that we all have a natural right to access all land geographically proximate to us regardless of the will of all others?

Should we recognise and respect the property rights of landowners? Or should we insist that public access to all land must necessarily be indiscriminate?

Sign on Mt Warning reads: NO WHITE PEOPLE ALLOWED.

Jasin wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 4:27pm:

Sign on Mt Warning reads: NO WHITE PEOPLE ALLOWED.

What if you put Nugget boot polish on your face?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 3:50pm:

Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist?

Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning?

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 11:06am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning?

So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!!

:) :) :)

https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title

Quote:

So you have defined the Native Title act as racist

What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act?

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 11:37am:

freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title

talk is cheap phil

if you feel strongly about it, sell your property in australia, hand the proceeds over to the northern land council and buy a one way ticket on british airways to heathrow.
anything less is merely hypocritical virtue signalling that costs you nothing more then a 10 second post  ::) ::)

aquascoot wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 12:33pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title talk is cheap phil if you feel strongly about it, sell your property in australia, hand the proceeds over to the northern land council and buy a one way ticket on british airways to heathrow. anything less is merely hypocritical virtue signalling that costs you nothing more then a 10 second post  ::) ::)

What are you ranting about ya dickhead....I am not the one complaining about Native Title which has nothing to do with private property....You conflate a strawman argument because you are a racist wanker like Freediver....Piss off back to what ever hovel you crawled from if you don't like Australia's laws!!!

:) :) :)

we appear to have touched a nerve

phil is all for giving back the country to the indigenous as long as he gets to keep his slice of the pie.

we call this hypocrisy  ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 2:48pm:

What are you ranting about ya dickhead....I am not the one complaining about Native Title which has nothing to do with private property....You conflate a strawman argument because you are a racist wanker like Freediver....Piss off back to what ever hovel you crawled from if you don't like Australia's laws!!! :) :) :)

Hypocrite is correct!


Look what you said just now:


Quote:

You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole...

YOUR private property is based ENTIRELY on British law. It is no less 'stolen land' than any other part of whatever Aborigines called this continent before the British arrived and gave them laws, sanitation, and all the rest of the stuff the Romans did for the People's Popular Front of Judea.

You "support the discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole" when it benefits you PRIVATELY.

Then you bluster and rage like an idiot who had an electric wire attached to his amygdala.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:19am:

The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::)

Where are these things happening?

Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 3:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 2:48pm: What are you ranting about ya dickhead....I am not the one complaining about Native Title which has nothing to do with private property....You conflate a strawman argument because you are a racist wanker like Freediver....Piss off back to what ever hovel you crawled from if you don't like Australia's laws!!! :) :) :) Hypocrite is correct! Look what you said just now: Quote: You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole... YOUR private property is based ENTIRELY on British law. It is no less 'stolen land' than any other part of whatever Aborigines called this continent before the British arrived and gave them laws, sanitation, and all the rest of the stuff the Romans did for the People's Popular Front of Judea. You "support the discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole" when it benefits you PRIVATELY. Then you bluster and rage like an idiot who had an electric wire attached to his amygdala.

British Law = Native Title....You want to uphold or deny certain laws you based on your stupidity....If you don't like the laws then piss off back to were ever you crawled from Fwank!!!

::) ::) ::)

Quote:

So you have defined the Native Title act as racist

What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act?

It's out of ignorance to presume aboriginal peoples did not have laws before 1788.

Not only did they have laws, but many of those laws are amazingly complex.

Marriage laws within a tribal region are incredibly complex.

Tribal territory laws existed.

Dietary laws, laws governing the conduct between male and female, men and women, elder and junior...

Laws governing the telling of tribal myths and stories.

Laws governing the sacred and mundane... and expected conduct when interacting with the sacred.

As many laws as are necessary for organised social life to exist at all among humans.

What they did not have, like all non-literate tribal peoples, including the Scottish Highlander clans, were laws requiring written title deeds to land.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 3:22pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 3:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 2:48pm: What are you ranting about ya dickhead....I am not the one complaining about Native Title which has nothing to do with private property....You conflate a strawman argument because you are a racist wanker like Freediver....Piss off back to what ever hovel you crawled from if you don't like Australia's laws!!! :) :) :) Hypocrite is correct! Look what you said just now: Quote: You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole... YOUR private property is based ENTIRELY on British law. It is no less 'stolen land' than any other part of whatever Aborigines called this continent before the British arrived and gave them laws, sanitation, and all the rest of the stuff the Romans did for the People's Popular Front of Judea. You "support the discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole" when it benefits you PRIVATELY. Then you bluster and rage like an idiot who had an electric wire attached to his amygdala. British Law = Native Title....You want to uphold or deny certain laws you based on your stupidity....If you don't like the laws then piss off back to were ever you crawled from Fwank!!! ::) ::) ::)

Your private property was once 'Aboriginal land'. It is yours because of British law, so don't knock the British, you wouldn't be where you are without them.

As for native title, it is .... er.... a British legal invention.

By the late 18th century, with Britain careening towards the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of 'mega' cities, land reform was required to manage large-scale intensive framing to feed the population of these large urban areas.

The use of land title deeds, and laws governing land ownership, were weaponised against non-literate tribal peoples to expropriate their land wherever it was needed.

This occurred throughout the British Empire, (even within Britain and Ireland, itself), and the nascent United States, to ensure huge tracts of agricultural land ownership were concentrated into the hands of the few - landlords who could be trusted by the Imperial establishment to provide as much agricultural products as were necessary to fuel the Empire's cities' populations. Returning once unimaginable wealth to 'gentleman farmers'.

It was in this world that all tribal peoples throughout the world found themselves quickly dispossessed of their ancient lands.

Those rural peoples within Britain and Ireland, who were not forcibly removed from their lands and exiled to other parts of the Empire, were offered the opportunity to restart their lives somewhere else... like the American colonies/US, Canada, Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

In every instance, indigenous tribal lands had to be confiscated or arrogated by the crown to accommodate those dispossessed British/Irish peoples.

The idea that the British wandered the globe like apostles, spreading the 'gospel' of British governance and its legal system as their sacred gift to the world, is as ridiculous as a two-legged barstool.

The British could not possibly have afforded to establish and pay for the maintenance of the Empire indefinitely... each colony was required to be self-sustaining and capable of transporting its excess wealth of the lands back to Britain for the British people's consumption - from food to minerals.

What the British Navy and its armies did provide (until a colony was capable of defending itself) was the protection of settlers against any force, foreign or domestic, that resisted or hindered this imperial progress.

Coulda been worse - coulda been the French, the German, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch or Belgians.

Or the Chinese, gawd'elpus.

Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:02pm:

Coulda been worse - coulda been the French, the German, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch or Belgians. Or the Chinese, gawd'elpus.

The Indonesians, as Rocky said - had lots of practice with the West Papuans.

It was British commercially predatory practices in its colonies that led directly to the American Revolution.

Yes, there was the stamp tax and its subsequent 'no taxation without representation', but there were also the commercial and military deals struck with native Americans in favour of the British establishment's interests over the colonists that stayed the British army when natives physically challenged the colonists' expansionism.

There was also the deep-rooted fear that the British would allow the East India Company to establish itself in the American colonies and systematically loot them as it was doing in India.

Race wars against Yellow people are ok.
You can use napalm and nukes.

Race wars against Black people is not ok.
That's racism.

In places where the British did negotiate with local Indigenous peoples over land acquisition, what they did not mention was the sheer number of immigrants who would settle in their former lands.

That massive tracts of land would be needed, over and above that required to house them.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 7:56am:

In places where the British did negotiate with local Indigenous peoples over land acquisition, what they did not mention was the sheer number of immigrants who would settle in their former lands. That massive tracts of land would be needed, over and above that required to house them.

Happened all across the world....still going on.... the Indian sub-continent has now negotiated with Albocorp for exactly the same thing.... and we Indigenous people of Australia didn't even get a say in this amazing race treaty.

Our Great Leaders have done it to us again....

Noe:-  even the Aboriginal small groups did it - a group would 'negotiate' the traditional way - fight it out - then occupy and hopefully increase their 'footprint' ... this movement of peoples has been going on since time immemorial - it's not just something 'inflicted' on 'native populations' by certain groups.  Every tribe everywhere is not the original settlers there...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 8:12am:

Noe:-  even the Aboriginal small groups did it - a group would 'negotiate' the traditional way - fight it out - then occupy and hopefully increase their 'footprint' ... this movement of peoples has been going on since time immemorial - it's not just something 'inflicted' on 'native populations' by certain groups.  Every tribe everywhere is not the original settlers there...

Yes, all human communities can and will attack those outsiders they perceive as a threat to their resource access.

However, indigenous peoples increasing their footprint to accommodate dozens or even up to 100 individuals, is incomparable to the tens of thousands of foreign immigrants arriving monthly/yearly into indigenous territory.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 7:56am:

In places where the British did negotiate with local Indigenous peoples over land acquisition, what they did not mention was the sheer number of immigrants who would settle in their former lands. That massive tracts of land would be needed, over and above that required to house them.

The issue of land needs for farming was one of the primary causes of NZ's land wars of the 1860s...

With its major city, Auckland, growing exponentially from what it was a mere 20 years before, the need for farmland became urgent. With Maori landowners refusing to just hand over their land - respect for tribal ownership of which had been assured by the Treaty of Waitangi - confrontation was inevitable.

Over 100 years later it was the cause of one of the rarest monarchical acts of the British Empire/Commonwealth where the sovereign is head of state - A formal apology from the sovereign, herself, for the Crown's treatment of the Tainui tribe - for waging war on the Crown's own subjects for the purpose of confiscating land.

Even India, which the British looted with impunity, cannot secure a royal apology.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 8:35am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 17th, 2024 at 8:12am: Noe:-  even the Aboriginal small groups did it - a group would 'negotiate' the traditional way - fight it out - then occupy and hopefully increase their 'footprint' ... this movement of peoples has been going on since time immemorial - it's not just something 'inflicted' on 'native populations' by certain groups.  Every tribe everywhere is not the original settlers there... Yes, all human communities can and will attack those outsiders they perceive as a threat to their resource access. However, indigenous peoples increasing their footprint to accommodate dozens or even up to 100 individuals, is incomparable to the tens of thousands of foreign immigrants arriving monthly/yearly into indigenous territory.

Yes - this is a dire situation for today........................ and we Indigenes haven't even been consulted or given a treaty or anything... we're supposed to be protected under the social contract that is not worth the paper it was written on..... the Canberra Man made us many promises.... he promised that our voices would be heard... that our rights and our access to land protected.... they only ever kept one promise ... they promised to over-ride our wishes at every turn and hand over our sovereignty to anywhere in the world.... and thus to take all our rights..... they kept that promise.

They put us on a social science train - freediver, Frank, Boris, aquascoot and myself - they gave us big hats and took us to the Ivory Tower City ... the president Albo shook our hands, one by one, and gave us all medals... and he said 'Endeavour To Persevere!'.

So we all went home and sat down and thought about it.... Endeavour To Persevere........ and when we had thought long enough - we declared war on the united social science madnesses.....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 10:27am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 17th, 2024 at 8:35am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 17th, 2024 at 8:12am: Noe:-  even the Aboriginal small groups did it - a group would 'negotiate' the traditional way - fight it out - then occupy and hopefully increase their 'footprint' ... this movement of peoples has been going on since time immemorial - it's not just something 'inflicted' on 'native populations' by certain groups.  Every tribe everywhere is not the original settlers there... Yes, all human communities can and will attack those outsiders they perceive as a threat to their resource access. However, indigenous peoples increasing their footprint to accommodate dozens or even up to 100 individuals, is incomparable to the tens of thousands of foreign immigrants arriving monthly/yearly into indigenous territory. Yes - this is a dire situation for today........................ and we Indigenes haven't even been consulted or given a treaty or anything... we're supposed to be protected under the social contract that is not worth the paper it was written on..... the Canberra Man made us many promises.... he promised that our voices would be heard... that our rights and our access to land protected.... they only ever kept one promise ... they promised to over-ride our wishes at every turn and hand over our sovereignty to anywhere in the world.... and thus to take all our rights..... they kept that promise.

You need to understand the term Indigenous before flinging it around like faeces in your monkey cage.

But, anyway, now that you've used it to characterise yourself... You'd have some understanding then of the actual indigenous and their grievances... and why there is a drive to reclaim some land as exclusively their own.

And that discrimination is sometimes justifiable.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 2:53pm:

we appear to have touched a nerve

By highlighting your stupidity? Unlikely :D

So now you reckon people born here of multiple generations are not 'Indigenous'?  When did they set a date?

We have Aborigines who are Indigenous - and we have the rest of us who are Indigenous but not Aboriginal.  The inhabitants of Britain were once called 'the Aborigines'....

Now leave your monkey faeces at home.... boy!

I'm Indigenous!  And so is the neighbour's dog!

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 10:34am:

a drive to reclaim some land as exclusively their own.

The very concept is incomprehensible, unthinkable to pre-contact Aborighines. It is something they learned from the colonists and it is STILL incomepatible with how they say they see the land and themselves on it.

They don't own land even in a socialist or communist sense, like the kibbutzim did, in common.

Their traditional land ownership is most like 'land oiwnership' by territorial hunter gatherers: they know the boundaries, they live off it but otherwise there is no ownership.

"a drive to reclaim some land as exclusively their own."

I've long advocated that they receive SOME land Freehold to own and build on - as a base etc... and that their Native Title rights continue in the ability to wander, camp, hunt, fish, carry out traditional rites etc anywhere but on OWNED land or with permission.

This craze for handing over massive swathes simply on the basis that they reckon it's theirs - when it is actually owned by everyone as national park etc.... is way off the reservation.... on which subject - Arnhem Land is a remaining 'reservation' exclusively for the local Aborigines and all others by invitation... so much for the vilification of the old-style 'reservation' system.

Just because ONE reservation is a success (relatively speaking) is no reason to now go about creating the same things by different means.... such as the recent handover of the Kimberley Coast from Derby to Nununurra IN TOTAL.... pure nonsense...  just because few people go there doesn't mean that those national parks are unused - they are ALWAYS in use as national parks.

Home base, chance to OWN some land of their own and to build a home etc (which they would do with massive assistance), and then the right to Free Range across the national parks alongside everyone else - along with a few genuine Ranger jobs to protect wildlife and genuine sacred sites etc - is the go.... not this dividing up of Australia into small states to suit some mythical idea of past ownership and some perceived need to preserve nature as it is.  As properly managed National Parks all those exist already... even in a sense of being a small separate state.... but owned by EVERYONE as is right.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 1:31pm:

So now you reckon people born here of multiple generations are not 'Indigenous'?  When did they set a date? We have Aborigines who are Indigenous - and we have the rest of us who are Indigenous but not Aboriginal.  The inhabitants of Britain were once called 'the Aborigines'.... Now leave your monkey faeces at home.... boy! I'm Indigenous!  And so is the neighbour's dog!

It's an ignorant misuse of the term to imagine you are indigenous.

Even many Maori dispute that they are indigenous to NZ, given they arrived there not long before Colombus discovered the New World.

If the term was reduced to your convenient definition, nearly everyone born anywhere could be characterised as indigenous.

It's a convenient misappropriation of the word used to justify land dispossession.

If you're a descendant of colonists, your history lies geographically somewhere else. If you're descended from many peoples from various parts of the world, you may be legally an Australian... and a mutt, like your dog.

Australian aboriginal peoples are the world's poster children of the term.

There's at least one here who imagines that the use of a 19th-century form of lawfare regarding land ownership justifies land dispossession.

By that reckoning, if a foreign people invaded and took possession of Australia, they could justify the same by arguing that land ownership not registered and recognised within their legal system was forfeited to their state.

So Indigenous actually means absolutely nothing.... thank you, Meistie - I'll continue to call Aborigines Aborigines and not Indigenes.

Now - this '19th century style of lawfare' you mention - I take it you are placing this in 2024 ....... does that include lawfare bastardised by unelected swill government bodies to determine who they will hand land over to for free without consultation or public vote and then Enclose that land?  Sounds pretty right to me.... talk about dispossession - more like outright theft.....

What particular groups do you consider could possibly be under any threat of 'dispossession' here and now? Be careful ..... we know the answer, don't we?

If you're talking about past 'dispossession' - why are you bothering? It's 2024 - not 1824  .... and not 0024 - remember those historical mass movements of people..... all the way Out Of Africa to eventually here in one strain.. then repeat arrivals here of other groups......... so it follows that if we all possess the earth - there is no Invasion ... just a minor dispute between extended family members over occupancy of the best bits....

Of course we know that is not so... and that there are too many differences between groups.... so it's more likely the multiple strand alien landings is the go....   :o

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 12:11am:

So Indigenous actually means absolutely nothing.... thank you, Meistie - I'll continue to call Aborigines Aborigines and not Indigenes.

So, you live alone, then... with your private language as a 'sovereign citizen'.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 9:02am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 12:11am: So Indigenous actually means absolutely nothing.... thank you, Meistie - I'll continue to call Aborigines Aborigines and not Indigenes. So, you live alone, then... with your private language as a 'sovereign citizen'.

Well - if there are no rules on how we define 'Indigenous' - your Maoris say they are not despite long tenure - so clearly the only Indigeneity possible is to Planet Earth - in which case it has no meaning in terms of segregating groups in any given nation.  Given also that the Australian Aborigine (let's just call them the AA for short so as to avoid confusion with other 'aborigines' in Borneo or South Africa or whatever .. the hill tribes in Vietnam etc) is a product of endless waves of (gasps) Invasion by ever more separate groups arriving here - it is in fact impossible to establish who is or is not Indigenous to this land and even the first arrivals were Africans anyway .... so the entire issue is moot, and thus is merely a matter of identification or appropriation.

I'm Indigenous - so is the Blue-tongue in the garden!!   8-)

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 9:36am:

Well - if there are no rules on how we define 'Indigenous' - your Maoris say they are not despite long tenure - so clearly the only Indigeneity possible is to Planet Earth - in which case it has no meaning in terms of segregating groups in any given nation.  Given also that the Australian Aborigine (let's just call them the AA for short so as to avoid confusion with other 'aborigines' in Borneo or South Africa or whatever .. the hill tribes in Vietnam etc) is a product of endless waves of (gasps) Invasion by ever more separate groups arriving here - it is in fact impossible to establish who is or is not Indigenous to this land and even the first arrivals were Africans anyway .... so the entire issue is moot, and thus is merely a matter of identification or appropriation. I'm Indigenous - so is the Blue-tongue in the garden!!   8-)

Those Maoris who argue against their own NZ indigeneity do so because their arrival in NZ (around 1300) is known to all Maoris, having been preserved by their oral tradition.

These stories of arrival, regardless of tribe, are remarkably consistent and almost identical, with none disputing their arrival, the method of travel, or the timeline.

They even agree on the names of the canoes that successfully arrived in NZ.

The islands they left can be traced to eastern Polynesia with the Indigenous Tahitian language being so close to Maori, they are intelligible to each other, despite hundreds of years of no contact.

The modern use of the term, Indigenous, requires that there be no sense of originating from anywhere else, (other than mythic Adam-and-Eve-like stories ), and there is no evidence that can determine where they arrived from, or specifically when.

And, yes, the Blue-tongue in the garden is indigenous!

So the question still remains - are they ever gonna be Indigenous again? 7-800 years and once the vast majority does not ever make a person Indigenous?

Again what is the yardstick then?  Those before the Maori?  When did they arrive and who did they displace?  Then those before them.....

Indigeneity is unfathomable.... so were the claimed 'last group' of Invaders 10,000 years ago or whatever instantly 'Indigenous' because of racial DNA connections or something?  How long did it take?  Do you wish to settle on 'anyone before the Final Invasion (Captain Cook/Phillip)' as the yardstick?  If so - why, based on a history of successive Invasions?  Jesus, Chinese, Indos, Mussos, Kokonuts of some sort.... the bind moggles... the whole world could be Indigenous.... the Batavia survivors maybe....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 10:07am:

So the question still remains - are they ever gonna be Indigenous again? 7-800 years and once the vast majority does not ever make a person Indigenous? Again what is the yardstick then?  Those before the Maori?  When did they arrive and who did they displace?  Then those before them..... Indigeneity is unfathomable.... so were the claimed 'last group' of Invaders 10,000 years ago or whatever instantly 'Indigenous' because of racial DNA connections or something?  How long did it take?  Do you wish to settle on 'anyone before the Final Invasion (Captain Cook/Phillip)' as the yardstick?  If so - why, based on a history of successive Invasions?  Jesus, Chinese, Indos, Mussos, Kokonuts of some sort.... the bind moggles... the whole world could be Indigenous.... the Batavia survivors maybe....

As I wrote earlier, Indigenity is ascribed to those peoples where there is no direct evidence of their origin.

Yes, modern science can place all humans as a species roughly on many trajectories out of Africa, but to say that makes us all indigenous to Africa is a misuse of the term.

No Australian Aboriginal person, clan, mob/tribe has any evidence of their ancient ancestors' travel to Australia, other than Dreamtime myths that place their origin within the continent, not beyond.

As for pre-Maori peoples, Maoris did have stories in their oral tradition, most of which were suppressed and forgotten by them after European settlement in the 19th century.

No evidence either way then... they were Indigenous somewhere before here so are just Aborigines now... though we prefer the term Australians.... it's only the luvvies who insist on calling them other things....

mothra wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:33am:

Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men?

Why would you care?

You can't even support your sisters in patriarchal, misogynist Islamic countries & societies nor your sisters in their sports from being oppressed or unfairly disadvantaged by men.

The notion of pre-Maori inhabitation on the main islands is a touchy and taboo subject.

Most Maoris discourage discussion on the subject for obvious political reasons.

When archeologists or anthropologists discover artefacts that appear to pre-date Maori arrival on the main islands, their findings, identities and credentials are quickly questioned and ridiculed.

From oral stories documented in the early 19th century, it appears that Maoris were aware of a pre-existing Polynesian people inhabiting the main islands, but they were exterminated or were quickly absorbed into the Maori population - their both being Polynesian peoples, absorption cannot be proved as the DNA markers of their Polynesian descent anywhere across the Pacific is almost identical.

mothra wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 9:58am:

Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:33am: Tell me Fleadriver ... if a law is passed that advantages women, is it sexist to men? Obviously. By definition. Ipso facto. A law advantaging one sex means it is disadvantaging the other ON THE BASIS OF sex. And if the law is about uterine cancer?

Why would there be a law regarding uterine cancer?

Are you saying there should be one?

Would that be to prevent men identifying as women saying they can get uterine cancer or suffer the same pain as a biological woman who has it? ;D

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 10:28am:

No evidence either way then... they were Indigenous somewhere before here so are just Aborigines now... though we prefer the term Australians.... it's only the luvvies who insist on calling them other things....

So, you live alone, then... with your private language, as a 'sovereign citizen'.

One remarkable feature of Maori traditions is that they were and are so open to the idea of sexual cohabitation with European settlers that no full-blood Maoris exist today, and few can claim to be even half-Maori.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:19am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:44am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 10:09am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 9:52am: Quote: Never is the answer for the upteenth time Why was that so difficult for you? And where have you answered previously? All I see is you being evasive. I have answered your bullshit question multiple times Freedickhead!!! https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1733787799/105#119 [quote]I have given you my answer again and again Congratulations, you posted the same thing twice in a row. [quote]So what are you claiming is discrimination I have made all sorts of claims about racial discrimination on this site. Are you really not aware of a single one? So you are race baiting and not prepared to clarify what it is you are actually bitching about....You pathetic racist piece of sh!t??? I am done with you Freedickhead!!! ::) ::) ::)

It was a question Phil. What on earth made you think I was referring to something specific with such a general question?[/quote]

The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling???

::) ::) ::)[/quote]

You haven't got a clue.

1. Children weren't taken away based on race. All children regardless of race have been taken away from neglect. Even today parents of all races lose their children because they fail to provide them with the necessities to thrive. All races of children here in Australia.

2. Who has been denied legal entry based on race?

3. What innocent people were put in detention based on race?  Were they illegal immigrants arriving by boat with out passports or ID?

4. And just who was or has made laws specific to one race?
If you're talking about the failed referendum then yes it was your mates in the Labor Party trying to do just that.

If you're talking about the Intervention Laws regarding Aboriginals with alcohol bans & the cashless credit card .....that was revoked by an NT Labor Govt....

check the number of communities & their women elders who protested and wanted those regulations reinstated because it reduced alcohol related violence, DV, child sexual abuse & other crime.  ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 12:29pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:22am: Like I said Phil, there are plenty of examples of me pointing about both race and sex discrimination on this site. Not sure why it gets you so worked up. I don't like racists Freediver....You are a racist....Why is that so hard to comprehend??? :-? :-? :-? What makes you think I am a racist? Is it merely because you get your panties in a bunch over what I post?

That's all PhilTheDill has - "you're a racist, you're a racist"
2 short planks aren't as thick as him.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 3:22pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 3:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 2:48pm: What are you ranting about ya dickhead....I am not the one complaining about Native Title which has nothing to do with private property....You conflate a strawman argument because you are a racist wanker like Freediver....Piss off back to what ever hovel you crawled from if you don't like Australia's laws!!! :) :) :) Hypocrite is correct! Look what you said just now: Quote: You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole... YOUR private property is based ENTIRELY on British law. It is no less 'stolen land' than any other part of whatever Aborigines called this continent before the British arrived and gave them laws, sanitation, and all the rest of the stuff the Romans did for the People's Popular Front of Judea. You "support the discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole" when it benefits you PRIVATELY. Then you bluster and rage like an idiot who had an electric wire attached to his amygdala. British Law = Native Title....You want to uphold or deny certain laws you based on your stupidity....If you don't like the laws then piss off back to were ever you crawled from Fwank!!! ::) ::) ::)

Go!!!! Go!!! you ignoramus you're winning the race to clueless clod.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 10:35am:

The notion of pre-Maori inhabitation on the main islands is a touchy and taboo subject. Most Maoris discourage discussion on the subject for obvious political reasons. When archeologists or anthropologists discover artefacts that appear to pre-date Maori arrival on the main islands, their findings, identities and credentials are quickly questioned and ridiculed. From oral stories documented in the early 19th century, it appears that Maoris were aware of a pre-existing Polynesian people inhabiting the main islands, but they were exterminated or were quickly absorbed into the Maori population - their both being Polynesian peoples, absorption cannot be proved as the DNA markers of their Polynesian descent anywhere across the Pacific is almost identical.

Is that because they killed them & ate them or enslaved them like they did to the Moriori of the Chatham Islands?

Gnads wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:19am: The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::) You haven't got a clue. 1. Children weren't taken away based on race. All children regardless of race have been taken away from neglect. Even today parents of all races lose their children because they fail to provide them with the necessities to thrive. All races of children here in Australia. 2. Who has been denied legal entry based on race? 3. What innocent people were put in detention based on race?  Were they illegal immigrants arriving by boat with out passports or ID? 4. And just who was or has made laws specific to one race? If you're talking about the failed referendum then yes it was your mates in the Labor Party trying to do just that. If you're talking about the Intervention Laws regarding Aboriginals with alcohol bans & the cashless credit card .....that was revoked by an NT Labor Govt.... check the number of communities & their women elders who protested and wanted those regulations reinstated because it reduced alcohol related violence, DV, child sexual abuse & other crime.  ::)

Indeed.


I am looking forward to Poison Pill Phil's spittle-flecked 'thoughts' in response.

(to quote the punch line from the Monty Python restaurant fork scene:-

(with Phil).. it's a good thing nobody mentioned Native LANDS Act.... which confers Freehold title and is becoming totally - in the hands of bad governments bent on bending the law - entwined with Native Title - which latter is the simple right to use, camp on, travel, fish, hunt and carry out traditional practices on Crown and National Parks land - but not on private property.

The DIFFERENCE between Aborigines and others re Native Title is that without specific approval/licence - others cannot hunt or fish - or maybe carry out ritual burnings at the stake or something.

With Native Lands - that is Aboriginal property pure and simple and any visitor - such as Albo to Arnhem Land - does so by invitation.

What is NEEDED right here and now is a full stop to unelected government departments, at the behest of and in connivance with their political masters, handing over Crown land, National Parks and even privately owned land to Aboriginal groups on demand without our leave or even full and open and fair consultation and a vote.  I will guarantee you one thing - the party that comes and and says they will reverse this growing trend towards disaster for this country will sweep the others aside at election.

The People spoke once - then were betrayed.... they will not forget.

Footnote:-  this deliberate entwining of Native Title and Native Lands is precisely the reason that wild handing out of 'native title' is itself now dangerous to this nation, and must be severely curtailed and controlled in accordance with the wishes of the people, and not with the wishes of the Kommissariat of Party Mate Appointed Gauleiters.

Which one is Phil??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iSKCRcAwX8

Gnads wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 11:14am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 10:35am: The notion of pre-Maori inhabitation on the main islands is a touchy and taboo subject. Most Maoris discourage discussion on the subject for obvious political reasons. When archeologists or anthropologists discover artefacts that appear to pre-date Maori arrival on the main islands, their findings, identities and credentials are quickly questioned and ridiculed. From oral stories documented in the early 19th century, it appears that Maoris were aware of a pre-existing Polynesian people inhabiting the main islands, but they were exterminated or were quickly absorbed into the Maori population - their both being Polynesian peoples, absorption cannot be proved as the DNA markers of their Polynesian descent anywhere across the Pacific is almost identical. Is that because they killed them & ate them or enslaved them like they did to the Moriori of the Chatham Islands?

Yes, that is exactly the reason... or at least the most likely fate of any peoples the Maoris may have encountered on the islands.

They were infamous for it across the Pacific - being Polynesian marauder cannibal pirates.

Gnads wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 10:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 12:29pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:22am: Like I said Phil, there are plenty of examples of me pointing about both race and sex discrimination on this site. Not sure why it gets you so worked up. I don't like racists Freediver....You are a racist....Why is that so hard to comprehend??? :-? :-? :-? What makes you think I am a racist? Is it merely because you get your panties in a bunch over what I post? That's all PhilTheDill has - "you're a racist, you're a racist" 2 short planks aren't as thick as him.

I would say always putting down minorities and using deragotory language qualifies....Look at Crappler using evey racist trope he can spew out yet you say nothing about his overt racism....Why are you racist arseholes so defensive about being racist arseholes....You are a complete dickhead like your racist mates!!!

:) :) :)

Frank wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 11:21am:

Gnads wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 10:51am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:19am: The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::) You haven't got a clue. 1. Children weren't taken away based on race. All children regardless of race have been taken away from neglect. Even today parents of all races lose their children because they fail to provide them with the necessities to thrive. All races of children here in Australia. 2. Who has been denied legal entry based on race? 3. What innocent people were put in detention based on race?  Were they illegal immigrants arriving by boat with out passports or ID? 4. And just who was or has made laws specific to one race? If you're talking about the failed referendum then yes it was your mates in the Labor Party trying to do just that. If you're talking about the Intervention Laws regarding Aboriginals with alcohol bans & the cashless credit card .....that was revoked by an NT Labor Govt.... check the number of communities & their women elders who protested and wanted those regulations reinstated because it reduced alcohol related violence, DV, child sexual abuse & other crime.  ::) Indeed. I am looking forward to Poison Pill Phil's spittle-flecked 'thoughts' in response.

Here you go Fwank....The Australian Government discriminated based on race....You lot really are stupid and uneducated....Now you arseholes can tell me this was not discrimination???


Quote:

The White Australia policy was a set of racial policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origins – especially Asians (primarily Chinese) and Pacific Islanders – from immigrating to Australia in order to create a "white/British" ideal focused on but not exclusively Anglo-Celtic peoples. Pre-Federation, the Australian colonies passed many anti-Chinese immigration laws mainly using Poll Taxes, with Federation in 1901 came discrimination based on the Dictation Test, which effectively gave power to immigration officials to racially discriminate without mentioning race. The policy also affected immigrants from Germany, Italy, and other European countries, especially in wartime. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973, when the Whitlam government removed the last racial elements of Australia's immigration laws

::) ::) ::)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 11:25am:

Which one is Phil?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iSKCRcAwX8

None of them....However you were the fat prick who had one more waffer (boom)....You really are a fat lying piece of Crap ya dickhead!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 2:46pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 11:21am: Gnads wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 10:51am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:19am: The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::) You haven't got a clue. 1. Children weren't taken away based on race. All children regardless of race have been taken away from neglect. Even today parents of all races lose their children because they fail to provide them with the necessities to thrive. All races of children here in Australia. 2. Who has been denied legal entry based on race? 3. What innocent people were put in detention based on race?  Were they illegal immigrants arriving by boat with out passports or ID? 4. And just who was or has made laws specific to one race? If you're talking about the failed referendum then yes it was your mates in the Labor Party trying to do just that. If you're talking about the Intervention Laws regarding Aboriginals with alcohol bans & the cashless credit card .....that was revoked by an NT Labor Govt.... check the number of communities & their women elders who protested and wanted those regulations reinstated because it reduced alcohol related violence, DV, child sexual abuse & other crime.  ::) Indeed. I am looking forward to Poison Pill Phil's spittle-flecked 'thoughts' in response. Here you go Fwank....The Australian Government discriminated based on race....You lot really are stupid and uneducated....Now you arseholes can tell me this was not discrimination??? Quote: The White Australia policy was a set of racial policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origins – especially Asians (primarily Chinese) and Pacific Islanders – from immigrating to Australia in order to create a "white/British" ideal focused on but not exclusively Anglo-Celtic peoples. Pre-Federation, the Australian colonies passed many anti-Chinese immigration laws mainly using Poll Taxes, with Federation in 1901 came discrimination based on the Dictation Test, which effectively gave power to immigration officials to racially discriminate without mentioning race. The policy also affected immigrants from Germany, Italy, and other European countries, especially in wartime. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973, when the Whitlam government removed the last racial elements of Australia's immigration laws ::) ::) ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

You can't just randomly jump back and forth in history WITHOUT signalling that you are doing it, as in this post of yours:


Quote:

The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling???

Frank wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 2:57pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 2:46pm: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 11:21am: Gnads wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 10:51am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:19am: The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::) You haven't got a clue. 1. Children weren't taken away based on race. All children regardless of race have been taken away from neglect. Even today parents of all races lose their children because they fail to provide them with the necessities to thrive. All races of children here in Australia. 2. Who has been denied legal entry based on race? 3. What innocent people were put in detention based on race?  Were they illegal immigrants arriving by boat with out passports or ID? 4. And just who was or has made laws specific to one race? If you're talking about the failed referendum then yes it was your mates in the Labor Party trying to do just that. If you're talking about the Intervention Laws regarding Aboriginals with alcohol bans & the cashless credit card .....that was revoked by an NT Labor Govt.... check the number of communities & their women elders who protested and wanted those regulations reinstated because it reduced alcohol related violence, DV, child sexual abuse & other crime.  ::) Indeed. I am looking forward to Poison Pill Phil's spittle-flecked 'thoughts' in response. Here you go Fwank....The Australian Government discriminated based on race....You lot really are stupid and uneducated....Now you arseholes can tell me this was not discrimination??? Quote: The White Australia policy was a set of racial policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origins – especially Asians (primarily Chinese) and Pacific Islanders – from immigrating to Australia in order to create a "white/British" ideal focused on but not exclusively Anglo-Celtic peoples. Pre-Federation, the Australian colonies passed many anti-Chinese immigration laws mainly using Poll Taxes, with Federation in 1901 came discrimination based on the Dictation Test, which effectively gave power to immigration officials to racially discriminate without mentioning race. The policy also affected immigrants from Germany, Italy, and other European countries, especially in wartime. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973, when the Whitlam government removed the last racial elements of Australia's immigration laws ::) ::) ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy You can't just randomly jump back and forth in history WITHOUT signalling that you are doing it, as in this post of yours: [quote]The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling???

[/quote]

I can post anything I want that shows the Australian Government was racist ya wanker...Do you have some time line on racial discrimination ya stupid prick....Has the truth hit a nerve ya lying dickhead....You really are a pathetic piece of crap Fwank!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 3:04pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 2:57pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 2:46pm: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 11:21am: Gnads wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 10:51am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:19am: The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::) You haven't got a clue. 1. Children weren't taken away based on race. All children regardless of race have been taken away from neglect. Even today parents of all races lose their children because they fail to provide them with the necessities to thrive. All races of children here in Australia. 2. Who has been denied legal entry based on race? 3. What innocent people were put in detention based on race?  Were they illegal immigrants arriving by boat with out passports or ID? 4. And just who was or has made laws specific to one race? If you're talking about the failed referendum then yes it was your mates in the Labor Party trying to do just that. If you're talking about the Intervention Laws regarding Aboriginals with alcohol bans & the cashless credit card .....that was revoked by an NT Labor Govt.... check the number of communities & their women elders who protested and wanted those regulations reinstated because it reduced alcohol related violence, DV, child sexual abuse & other crime.  ::) Indeed. I am looking forward to Poison Pill Phil's spittle-flecked 'thoughts' in response. Here you go Fwank....The Australian Government discriminated based on race....You lot really are stupid and uneducated....Now you arseholes can tell me this was not discrimination??? Quote: The White Australia policy was a set of racial policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origins – especially Asians (primarily Chinese) and Pacific Islanders – from immigrating to Australia in order to create a "white/British" ideal focused on but not exclusively Anglo-Celtic peoples. Pre-Federation, the Australian colonies passed many anti-Chinese immigration laws mainly using Poll Taxes, with Federation in 1901 came discrimination based on the Dictation Test, which effectively gave power to immigration officials to racially discriminate without mentioning race. The policy also affected immigrants from Germany, Italy, and other European countries, especially in wartime. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973, when the Whitlam government removed the last racial elements of Australia's immigration laws ::) ::) ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy You can't just randomly jump back and forth in history WITHOUT signalling that you are doing it, as in this post of yours: [quote]The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling???

I can post anything I want that shows the Australian Government was racist ya wanker...Do you have some time line on racial discrimination ya stupid prick....Has the truth hit a nerve ya lying dickhead....You really are a pathetic piece of crap Fwank!!!
[/quote]
You are free to talk about historical events as if they still held true today even when they don't.
We in turn are free to regard you as a mindless drongo for it.

Frank wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 3:54pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 3:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 2:57pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 2:46pm: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 11:21am: Gnads wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 10:51am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:19am: The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::) You haven't got a clue. 1. Children weren't taken away based on race. All children regardless of race have been taken away from neglect. Even today parents of all races lose their children because they fail to provide them with the necessities to thrive. All races of children here in Australia. 2. Who has been denied legal entry based on race? 3. What innocent people were put in detention based on race?  Were they illegal immigrants arriving by boat with out passports or ID? 4. And just who was or has made laws specific to one race? If you're talking about the failed referendum then yes it was your mates in the Labor Party trying to do just that. If you're talking about the Intervention Laws regarding Aboriginals with alcohol bans & the cashless credit card .....that was revoked by an NT Labor Govt.... check the number of communities & their women elders who protested and wanted those regulations reinstated because it reduced alcohol related violence, DV, child sexual abuse & other crime.  ::) Indeed. I am looking forward to Poison Pill Phil's spittle-flecked 'thoughts' in response. Here you go Fwank....The Australian Government discriminated based on race....You lot really are stupid and uneducated....Now you arseholes can tell me this was not discrimination??? Quote: The White Australia policy was a set of racial policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origins – especially Asians (primarily Chinese) and Pacific Islanders – from immigrating to Australia in order to create a "white/British" ideal focused on but not exclusively Anglo-Celtic peoples. Pre-Federation, the Australian colonies passed many anti-Chinese immigration laws mainly using Poll Taxes, with Federation in 1901 came discrimination based on the Dictation Test, which effectively gave power to immigration officials to racially discriminate without mentioning race. The policy also affected immigrants from Germany, Italy, and other European countries, especially in wartime. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973, when the Whitlam government removed the last racial elements of Australia's immigration laws ::) ::) ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy You can't just randomly jump back and forth in history WITHOUT signalling that you are doing it, as in this post of yours: [quote]The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? I can post anything I want that shows the Australian Government was racist ya wanker...Do you have some time line on racial discrimination ya stupid prick....Has the truth hit a nerve ya lying dickhead....You really are a pathetic piece of crap Fwank!!!

You are free to talk about historical events as if they still held true today even when they don't.
We in turn are free to regard you as a mindless drongo for it.
[/quote]



Quote:

'racial discrimination by the government"

I had no idea there was a timeline on racism Fwank....It was a question I answered ya dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 3:58pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 3:54pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 3:04pm: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 2:57pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 2:46pm: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 11:21am: Gnads wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 10:51am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 11:19am: The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? ::) ::) ::) You haven't got a clue. 1. Children weren't taken away based on race. All children regardless of race have been taken away from neglect. Even today parents of all races lose their children because they fail to provide them with the necessities to thrive. All races of children here in Australia. 2. Who has been denied legal entry based on race? 3. What innocent people were put in detention based on race?  Were they illegal immigrants arriving by boat with out passports or ID? 4. And just who was or has made laws specific to one race? If you're talking about the failed referendum then yes it was your mates in the Labor Party trying to do just that. If you're talking about the Intervention Laws regarding Aboriginals with alcohol bans & the cashless credit card .....that was revoked by an NT Labor Govt.... check the number of communities & their women elders who protested and wanted those regulations reinstated because it reduced alcohol related violence, DV, child sexual abuse & other crime.  ::) Indeed. I am looking forward to Poison Pill Phil's spittle-flecked 'thoughts' in response. Here you go Fwank....The Australian Government discriminated based on race....You lot really are stupid and uneducated....Now you arseholes can tell me this was not discrimination??? Quote: The White Australia policy was a set of racial policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origins – especially Asians (primarily Chinese) and Pacific Islanders – from immigrating to Australia in order to create a "white/British" ideal focused on but not exclusively Anglo-Celtic peoples. Pre-Federation, the Australian colonies passed many anti-Chinese immigration laws mainly using Poll Taxes, with Federation in 1901 came discrimination based on the Dictation Test, which effectively gave power to immigration officials to racially discriminate without mentioning race. The policy also affected immigrants from Germany, Italy, and other European countries, especially in wartime. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973, when the Whitlam government removed the last racial elements of Australia's immigration laws ::) ::) ::) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy You can't just randomly jump back and forth in history WITHOUT signalling that you are doing it, as in this post of yours: [quote]The Government should never discriminate against anyone....Taking children away from their parents based on race....Denying legal entry to a country based on race....Putting innocent people in detention centres based on race....Making laws specific to one race....No doubt you don't have an opinion you will share as usual....You were just trolling??? I can post anything I want that shows the Australian Government was racist ya wanker...Do you have some time line on racial discrimination ya stupid prick....Has the truth hit a nerve ya lying dickhead....You really are a pathetic piece of crap Fwank!!! You are free to talk about historical events as if they still held true today even when they don't. We in turn are free to regard you as a mindless drongo for it.

Quote:

'racial discrimination by the government"

I had no idea there was a timeline on racism Fwank....It was a question I answered ya dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)
[/quote]
There is a timeline on racism.  There is a timeline on most customs, views, laws, norms. Everyone knows that, even you.
You just pretend, moronically, that Australian government wacism is timeless.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 11:37am:

freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title

What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act?

Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant?

WELL - that looks like Phil on the ropes in his chosen metier .....

What's got me stuffed about these zealots and their endless drive to create New Reservations for the Aborigines by carving off chunks of National Parks and Crown Lands etc and just handing it over - is that none of this in any way resolves their actual problems.

Give away a swathe of land on the principle that it's 'remote' and thus 'out of sight, out of mind' to the general populace* - and there are no jobs there or anywhere near - their only income is dole money and maybe some 'royalties' - their problems with alcohol and violence etc do not go away but become worse without supervision and oversight ... and their death rate will rise and their lifespan decline....  maybe they won't go to prison as much because they are scarcely supervised and are too far away from Whartey to try to steal from him etc, and they don't just go to prison, they do the things that send them there, such as killing the missus.... not criminal by nature - no, no, no - just living the life .... but they don't die in any great numbers in prison anyway compared to the rest of the prison population...

So all this blustering and verbal violence and theft of lands behind the voter's backs and implementation of a Voice By Stealth and mealy-mouthing about Native Title being magically transformed into Freehold Lands and then forcing Enclosures and Exclusions is doing nothing for them and everything against them..... while at the same time creating a great divide - a veritable chasm - between Aboriginals and Australians (sic) ... and in that situation all those 'gaps' can only become worse, not better.

If governments are set on a Two State Solution - that separate state must have defined boundaries - not just one that is everywhere separate but unequal, given that one side has extraordinary rights no held by the other... you can't have a Two State Solution within the infrastructure of a country - the states must be separate, or you will not only have states without borders with different rules and laws, but also a Fifth Column permitted to run free.

Our current sets of government have a lot to answer for - we the people must ensure they pay for it in every way possible.


*tell that to the tourists and Grey Nomads on their triumphal lap etc.

Perhaps Phil thinks of it as some kind of zoo where in future generations we will be able to watch wild Aborigines hunting goannas. It's the ultimate apology.

Some cultures are inferior, some are superior.  They are not all the same.   
Judging is inevitable. Anyone who says she is not judging is lying.


Aboriginal culture is inferior.

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 8:43pm:

Perhaps Phil thinks of it as some kind of zoo where in future generations we will be able to watch wild Aborigines hunting goannas. It's the ultimate apology.

Aborassic Park concept....... morphed into the Two State Solution.... for those who do not wish to be Australian and who play up constantly or wage an Intifada to try to drive Australians out of their homes etc - their own Homeland.  fits in perfectly with their own demands to 'do things their way', have their own Aboriginal state, have their own laws, live the way they want traditionally and all else - with one proviso - it is self-funding as a separate state from Ausrael,  or two maybe, it does not take possession of national icons for their exclusive use and benefit.

That's what upsets the luvvies in their darkest hearts - they jump up and down and demand everything - but when it is all offered on a silver plate but without money - they start the cursing.

Like some head worker advising a kid to chop off the balls and be a girl (etc) - they KNOW in their hearts of darkness that this can never be and they are pursuing insanity.

Note:-  If we offered a million acres to some group of business people as their own private hunting lodge; or we gave a million acres to some group for their own private spiritual retreat to practice their cult as they choose; or gave hundreds of miles of National Park coastline to some rich guy - would Australia accept that?  NO!  And nor should any government seek to force them to bow down to it.... this apartheid and despotism.

Frank wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 8:51pm:

Some cultures are inferior, some are superior.  They are not all the same.    Judging is inevitable. Anyone who says she is not judging is lying. Aboriginal culture is inferior.

Inferior to what? The "culture" that has brought war, famine, pestilence and us ourselves to the very brink of existential destruction?

Inferior to what? Our knowledge of the land we're living on ad all that grows or stands within it?

Inferior in what ways, fruitbat?

See? Were you a curious fellow, you'd think, what is it i can learn here? Instead, you simply reflexively react with massive judgement based on your dramatically inferior criteria.

Who has the most stuff? WHo pillage the earth the most? Who stuck their parents in retirement community?

All these western achievements are nothing to the wisdom of the people who do not treat the earth as a commodity bearing prostitute.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 7:16am:

Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 8:51pm: Some cultures are inferior, some are superior.  They are not all the same.    Judging is inevitable. Anyone who says she is not judging is lying. Aboriginal culture is inferior. Inferior to what? The "culture" that has brought war, famine, pestilence and us ourselves to the very brink of existential destruction? Inferior to what? Our knowledge of the land we're living on ad all that grows or stands within it? Inferior in what ways, fruitbat? See? Were you a curious fellow, you'd think, what is it i can learn here? Instead, you simply reflexively react with massive judgement based on your dramatically inferior criteria. Who has the most stuff? WHo pillage the earth the most? Who stuck their parents in retirement community? All these western achievements are nothing to the wisdom of the people who do not treat the earth as a commodity bearing prostitute.

You are JUDGING!!  :D :D

(Told ya)

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 7:16am:

All these western achievements are nothing to the wisdom of the people who do not treat the earth as a commodity bearing prostitute.

Well, those Aboriginal peoples living in arid and semi-arid regions deliberately set fire to thousands of hectares of land to gather burnt animals, so...

Frank wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 8:07am:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 7:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 8:51pm: Some cultures are inferior, some are superior.  They are not all the same.    Judging is inevitable. Anyone who says she is not judging is lying. Aboriginal culture is inferior. Inferior to what? The "culture" that has brought war, famine, pestilence and us ourselves to the very brink of existential destruction? Inferior to what? Our knowledge of the land we're living on ad all that grows or stands within it? Inferior in what ways, fruitbat? See? Were you a curious fellow, you'd think, what is it i can learn here? Instead, you simply reflexively react with massive judgement based on your dramatically inferior criteria. Who has the most stuff? WHo pillage the earth the most? Who stuck their parents in retirement community? All these western achievements are nothing to the wisdom of the people who do not treat the earth as a commodity bearing prostitute. You are JUDGING!!  :D :D (Told ya)

Sure. I'm judging myself. I'm judging the road that has brought us here of which i am a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying.

Others, it would seem, who were ultimately cleverer than us.

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 4:51pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant?

Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 8:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 4:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant? Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!! :) :) :)

Pretty much nails it.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 9:36pm:

it does not take possession of national icons for their exclusive use and benefit. That's what upsets the luvvies in their darkest hearts - they jump up and down and demand everything

Aww... When's the last time you climbed Mt Warning? When's the next time planned?

Are you waiting till they make it safe for motorised trolleys? Make sure its diesel-powered.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 8:14am:

Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:07am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 7:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 8:51pm: Some cultures are inferior, some are superior.  They are not all the same.    Judging is inevitable. Anyone who says she is not judging is lying. Aboriginal culture is inferior. Inferior to what? The "culture" that has brought war, famine, pestilence and us ourselves to the very brink of existential destruction? Inferior to what? Our knowledge of the land we're living on ad all that grows or stands within it? Inferior in what ways, fruitbat? See? Were you a curious fellow, you'd think, what is it i can learn here? Instead, you simply reflexively react with massive judgement based on your dramatically inferior criteria. Who has the most stuff? WHo pillage the earth the most? Who stuck their parents in retirement community? All these western achievements are nothing to the wisdom of the people who do not treat the earth as a commodity bearing prostitute. You are JUDGING!!  :D :D (Told ya) Sure. I'm judging myself. I'm judging the road that has brought us here of which i am a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying. Others, it would seem, who were ultimately cleverer than us.

You are not judging yourself, you are preening yourself.

You are JUDGING western and Aboriginal cultures and achievements and rate the latter above the former for achieving nothing.  You valorise stagnation and deplore development.

You are not a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying. That is a ludicrous, grotesque mindset. You are of course not alone with it.

Frank wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 9:41am:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:14am: Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:07am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 7:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 8:51pm: Some cultures are inferior, some are superior.  They are not all the same.    Judging is inevitable. Anyone who says she is not judging is lying. Aboriginal culture is inferior. Inferior to what? The "culture" that has brought war, famine, pestilence and us ourselves to the very brink of existential destruction? Inferior to what? Our knowledge of the land we're living on ad all that grows or stands within it? Inferior in what ways, fruitbat? See? Were you a curious fellow, you'd think, what is it i can learn here? Instead, you simply reflexively react with massive judgement based on your dramatically inferior criteria. Who has the most stuff? WHo pillage the earth the most? Who stuck their parents in retirement community? All these western achievements are nothing to the wisdom of the people who do not treat the earth as a commodity bearing prostitute. You are JUDGING!!  :D :D (Told ya) Sure. I'm judging myself. I'm judging the road that has brought us here of which i am a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying. Others, it would seem, who were ultimately cleverer than us. You are not judging yourself, you are preening yourself. You are JUDGING western and Aboriginal cultures and achievements and rate the latter above the former for achieving nothing.  You valorise stagnation and deplore development. You are not a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying. That is a ludicrous, grotesque mindset. You are of course not alone with it.

No, you simple minded buffoon, i am lamenting the utter failure of western colonialism to consult and liaise with Indigenous people. Our determination to wipe them out by asserting ourselves on top of them and forcing them to our way.

And look how we are paying the piper.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 9:47am:

Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 9:41am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:14am: Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:07am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 7:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 8:51pm: Some cultures are inferior, some are superior.  They are not all the same.    Judging is inevitable. Anyone who says she is not judging is lying. Aboriginal culture is inferior. Inferior to what? The "culture" that has brought war, famine, pestilence and us ourselves to the very brink of existential destruction? Inferior to what? Our knowledge of the land we're living on ad all that grows or stands within it? Inferior in what ways, fruitbat? See? Were you a curious fellow, you'd think, what is it i can learn here? Instead, you simply reflexively react with massive judgement based on your dramatically inferior criteria. Who has the most stuff? WHo pillage the earth the most? Who stuck their parents in retirement community? All these western achievements are nothing to the wisdom of the people who do not treat the earth as a commodity bearing prostitute. You are JUDGING!!  :D :D (Told ya) Sure. I'm judging myself. I'm judging the road that has brought us here of which i am a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying. Others, it would seem, who were ultimately cleverer than us. You are not judging yourself, you are preening yourself. You are JUDGING western and Aboriginal cultures and achievements and rate the latter above the former for achieving nothing.  You valorise stagnation and deplore development. You are not a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying. That is a ludicrous, grotesque mindset. You are of course not alone with it. No, you simple minded buffoon, i am lamenting the utter failure of western colonialism to consult and liaise with Indigenous people. Our determination to wipe them out by asserting ourselves on top of them and forcing them to our way. And look how we are paying the piper.

English old ladies still sentimentalize about the “wisdom of the East” and American intellectuals about the “earth consciousness” of the Negro.


And Burney, Langton, Pearson, Mundine, Price, Ridgeway don't look like the products of utter failure.  Not even Thorpe.

Frank wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 10:20am:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 9:47am: Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 9:41am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:14am: Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:07am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 7:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 8:51pm: Some cultures are inferior, some are superior.  They are not all the same.    Judging is inevitable. Anyone who says she is not judging is lying. Aboriginal culture is inferior. Inferior to what? The "culture" that has brought war, famine, pestilence and us ourselves to the very brink of existential destruction? Inferior to what? Our knowledge of the land we're living on ad all that grows or stands within it? Inferior in what ways, fruitbat? See? Were you a curious fellow, you'd think, what is it i can learn here? Instead, you simply reflexively react with massive judgement based on your dramatically inferior criteria. Who has the most stuff? WHo pillage the earth the most? Who stuck their parents in retirement community? All these western achievements are nothing to the wisdom of the people who do not treat the earth as a commodity bearing prostitute. You are JUDGING!!  :D :D (Told ya) Sure. I'm judging myself. I'm judging the road that has brought us here of which i am a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying. Others, it would seem, who were ultimately cleverer than us. You are not judging yourself, you are preening yourself. You are JUDGING western and Aboriginal cultures and achievements and rate the latter above the former for achieving nothing.  You valorise stagnation and deplore development. You are not a beneficiary at the expense of others suffering and dying. That is a ludicrous, grotesque mindset. You are of course not alone with it. No, you simple minded buffoon, i am lamenting the utter failure of western colonialism to consult and liaise with Indigenous people. Our determination to wipe them out by asserting ourselves on top of them and forcing them to our way. And look how we are paying the piper. English old ladies still sentimentalize about the “wisdom of the East” and American intellectuals about the “earth consciousness” of the Negro. And Burney, Langton, Pearson, Mundine, Price, Ridgeway don't look like the products of utter failure.  Not even Thorpe.

Without surprise you have relegated the overarching point to mere gimmick.

Depressingly so. But not unsurprising. It's the only level you're competent on.

The overarching point is that the British brought Aborigines out of their millennia of stagnation in primitive aspic. Staying noble savages for another 10-20 thousand years was never an option for Aborigines.
And it's their great good fortune that it was the British, not, say, the Belgians. And that is why there are Langtons and Burneys, Mundenes, Prices, Pearsons  and Thorpes today. That is why Livid Thorpe can shout obscenities at the monarch and assorted others in Parliament, in parks, on streets while a Senator in the national parliament, representing Aborigines.



That is the overarching point.

Frank wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 10:42am:

The overarching point is that the British brought Aborigines out of their millennia of stagnation in primitive aspic. Staying noble savages for another 10-20 thousand years was never an option for Aborigines. And it's their great good fortune that it was the British, not, say, the Belgians. And that is why there are Langtons and Burneys, Mundenes, Prices, Pearsons  and Thorpes today. That is why Livid Thorpe can shout obscenities at the monarch and assorted others in Parliament, in parks, on streets while a Senator in the national parliament, representing Aborigines. That is the overarching point.

Rinse and repeat. Utterly without consideration.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 8:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 4:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant? Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!! :) :) :)

What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act?

Are you saying that you support racist government policies because you have your panties in a bunch over this forum? What happened to "never" supporting racist government policies?

Do you have any principles at all, or does your opinion change depending on who you are thinking about at the time?

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 10:52am:

Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 10:42am: The overarching point is that the British brought Aborigines out of their millennia of stagnation in primitive aspic. Staying noble savages for another 10-20 thousand years was never an option for Aborigines. And it's their great good fortune that it was the British, not, say, the Belgians. And that is why there are Langtons and Burneys, Mundenes, Prices, Pearsons  and Thorpes today. That is why Livid Thorpe can shout obscenities at the monarch and assorted others in Parliament, in parks, on streets while a Senator in the national parliament, representing Aborigines. That is the overarching point. Rinse and repeat. Utterly without consideration.

You mean they are far from being wiped out, as you thought was the purpose of the British, they sinisterly let them be prominent in Parliament academe, politics and public life?

Utter, utter failure. Lamentations, gnashing of teeth.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 11:24am:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:55am: freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 4:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant? Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!! :) :) :) What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Are you saying that you support racist government policies because you have your panties in a bunch over this forum? What happened to "never" supporting racist government policies? Do you have any principles at all, or does your opinion change depending on who you are thinking about at the time?

I support Native Title and the decisions of the court....You haven't shown how the Government is racist by accepting the decision of the courts....Now you racist arseholes claim the law is racist because it is not on your side....Sucks to be you!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 11:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:55am: freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 4:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant? Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!! :) :) :) What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Are you saying that you support racist government policies because you have your panties in a bunch over this forum? What happened to "never" supporting racist government policies? Do you have any principles at all, or does your opinion change depending on who you are thinking about at the time? I support Native Title and the decisions of the court....You haven't shown how the Government is racist by accepting the decision of the courts....Now you racist arseholes claim the law is racist because it is not on your side....Sucks to be you!!! :) :) :)

Native Title is not Aboriginal law. It is British law.

It is a British legal concession,  like everything else, to Aborigines BECAUSE of the absence of Aboriginal law. 

There is simply NO FUNCTIONAL aspect of Aboriginal life that can continue. The thousands of years of isolated stagnation is over and no aspect of it can survive. The Stone Age is over.

Aborigines can either move into modernity or insist on pretending to be anachronistic, English speaking primitives from 20,000 BC.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 11:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:55am: freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 4:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant? Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!! :) :) :) What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Are you saying that you support racist government policies because you have your panties in a bunch over this forum? What happened to "never" supporting racist government policies? Do you have any principles at all, or does your opinion change depending on who you are thinking about at the time? I support Native Title and the decisions of the court....You haven't shown how the Government is racist by accepting the decision of the courts....Now you racist arseholes claim the law is racist because it is not on your side....Sucks to be you!!! :) :) :)

I asked you about Mt Warning Phil. Do you need me to get out the crayons?

Frank wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 7:04pm:

Native Title is not Aboriginal law. It is British law. It is a British legal concession,  like everything else, to Aborigines BECAUSE of the absence of Aboriginal law.  There is simply NO FUNCTIONAL aspect of Aboriginal life that can continue. The thousands of years of isolated stagnation is over and no aspect of it can survive. The Stone Age is over. Aborigines can either move into modernity or insist on pretending to be anachronistic, English speaking primitives from 20,000 BC.

They can always choose their Two State Solution that the 'activist' Michael Mansell demanded, along with a few others who 'want to do things their way'. 

As for Native Title - it does not confer Freehold title and simply permits Aborigines to wander about, camp, fish, and pursue traditional practices on PUBLIC land, such as National Parks and Crown Lands.  Nowhere does it give the right to Exclude any others, nor is 'spiritual connection' a reason to Exclude others - as many times before - Mt Warning and Ayers Rock etc are spiritual things for EVERYONE in this country - hence they are National Parks - not private reserves.... nor will it ever be private reserves.

If your government, through an unelected body, handed the Three Sisters in the Blue Mountains to a group of rich people who shut everyone else out from enjoying their viewing etc without consultation and without any appeal - would you accept that as fair and reasonable?

Mt Warning's arrogation by the State government to the control of a tiny 'mob' - who are not even the 'traditional owners' under Native Title - just a bunch of town layabouts - was an act of theft from the people of New South Wales.  That was the Liberal government of 'Parrots Tits' Perrotet - now the Labor 'government' of Chris 'Ho Chi' Minns has done not one thing to repair the walking tracks and re-open this NATIONAL Park, or to pursue and prosecute the vandals who attack visitors' cars.

They will suffer the boot next election as a result.

Now then, Pill - the Native LANDS Act(s) ... that can confer Freehold title - but must not be confused with Native Title, and under no circumstances is there a valid argument for simply handing over millions of acres as 'freehold' under that act.  Those government that have done so will be ousted at the next election, and then rectification will take place along the lines I've suggested., firstly with those lands and national icons being resumed to Public control.

Aborigines will be granted SOME Freehold land on which to have a 'home base' and build a home etc... with massive input from the long-suffering taxpayer who'se already footed the bill for all this silliness ... then they will retain Native Title rights to wander etc, and - glory be, for whatever reason - negotiate with mining etc companies for 'royalties' as pocket money over and above their never-to-be-ended dole and other things like free air travel for medicals etc.

Those who do not want this settlement in perpetuity and who continue to demand their own sovereignty etc - can move or be moved to Aborassic Park ... a.k.a. The Park ... a.k.a. The Homeland ... under the proviso that no funding will be forthcoming as they 'go their own way' traditionally etc and they will cease to be Australian citizens with Australian rights .... apart from that the serial and clearly incurable criminal types will be shipped there and handed over to the Elders of the Tribes for judgement and ..... re-settlement under Tribal Laws.

Sounds one hell of a lot like a mighty big win-win for everyone!!

Another point where you miss out totally, Philly - is that Law must provide equal treatment for all equally - or it is not law but imposition, which it is the right of the people to not only reject - but to overthrow.

Got it?  Lex iniusta non est lex ... an unjust law is no law at all.

Frank wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 7:04pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 6:53pm: freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 11:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:55am: freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 4:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant? Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!! :) :) :) What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Are you saying that you support racist government policies because you have your panties in a bunch over this forum? What happened to "never" supporting racist government policies? Do you have any principles at all, or does your opinion change depending on who you are thinking about at the time? I support Native Title and the decisions of the court....You haven't shown how the Government is racist by accepting the decision of the courts....Now you racist arseholes claim the law is racist because it is not on your side....Sucks to be you!!! :) :) :) Native Title is not Aboriginal law. It is British law. It is a British legal concession,  like everything else, to Aborigines BECAUSE of the absence of Aboriginal law.  There is simply NO FUNCTIONAL aspect of Aboriginal life that can continue. The thousands of years of isolated stagnation is over and no aspect of it can survive. The Stone Age is over. Aborigines can either move into modernity or insist on pretending to be anachronistic, English speaking primitives from 20,000 BC.

Who claimed any different you complete dickhead Fwank....Did you actually think before you spew your racist bullshit ya stupid wanker....Aboriginal people do not care if you cannot go to Mt Warning you fat arsehole....Why does Freediver deny this is a race hate site with the racist bullshit you spew on a daily basis....You really are Freedivers bitch Fwank....Keep on wanking arseholes???

;D ;D ;D

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 8:46am:

Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 7:04pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 6:53pm: freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 11:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:55am: freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 4:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant? Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!! :) :) :) What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Are you saying that you support racist government policies because you have your panties in a bunch over this forum? What happened to "never" supporting racist government policies? Do you have any principles at all, or does your opinion change depending on who you are thinking about at the time? I support Native Title and the decisions of the court....You haven't shown how the Government is racist by accepting the decision of the courts....Now you racist arseholes claim the law is racist because it is not on your side....Sucks to be you!!! :) :) :) Native Title is not Aboriginal law. It is British law. It is a British legal concession,  like everything else, to Aborigines BECAUSE of the absence of Aboriginal law.  There is simply NO FUNCTIONAL aspect of Aboriginal life that can continue. The thousands of years of isolated stagnation is over and no aspect of it can survive. The Stone Age is over. Aborigines can either move into modernity or insist on pretending to be anachronistic, English speaking primitives from 20,000 BC. Who claimed any different you complete dickhead Fwank....Did you actually think before you spew your racist bullshit ya stupid wanker....Aboriginal people do not care if you cannot go to Mt Warning you fat arsehole....Why does Freediver deny this is a race hate site with the racist bullshit you spew on a daily basis....You really are Freedivers bitch Fwank....Keep on wanking arseholes??? ;D ;D ;D

https://youtu.be/q9RAZxNdCk8?si=VM565GEdeB4LnvBL
8-)

The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 11:11am:

The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!! :) :) :)

Do you share/approve of every Aboriginal superstition, including the ones that led to the closing of Mt Warning to all but Aborighine males of a particular tribe?

Do you accept and respect every Abrighine superstition and belief? If so, by extension, do you accept every other, non-Aborighine superstition and belief as well?

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 11:11am:

The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!! :) :) :)

its not even that they can't piss there that is their problem. Frank couldn't climb up mt warning if he tried and I doubt FD ever even thought of it prior to the aborigines being given rights. Their real problem is that the govt dared to give aborigines any rights at all. Sets them off like electricity and water

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 12:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:11am: The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!! :) :) :) its not even that they can't piss there that is their problem. Frank couldn't climb up mt warning if he tried and I doubt FD ever even thought of it prior to the aborigines being given rights. Their real problem is that the govt dared to give aborigines any rights at all. Sets them off like electricity and water

Are Abos a separate race?

Frank wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 12:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:05pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:11am: The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!! :) :) :) its not even that they can't piss there that is their problem. Frank couldn't climb up mt warning if he tried and I doubt FD ever even thought of it prior to the aborigines being given rights. Their real problem is that the govt dared to give aborigines any rights at all. Sets them off like electricity and water Are Abos a separate race?

if there was a race of morons, you'd be their leader

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 7:26pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 6:53pm: freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 11:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 8:55am: freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2024 at 4:51pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 11:06am: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2024 at 3:50pm: Phil do you think what the government did at Mt Warning is racist or sexist? Phil? If you would "never" support racial discrimination by the government, does that mean you oppose what the government did with Mt Warning? So you have defined the Native Title act as racist....The High Court of Australia has already decided you are a dickhead over that issue mate....Just keep bashing Abo's on your race hate site and continue on a hiding to nowhere....You need to change the law to reverse Native Title and no amount of racist bullshit will change anything....No I don't think it is racist to accept traditional owners rights....You are a racist and an idiot who thinks your rights are more important than anyone elses....Do you support discrimination by the British who took away most of the Aboriginals land arsehole....I hope you enjoyed my answer to your bullshit question Freediver!!! :) :) :) https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/what-is-native-title What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Do I need to start yet another new thread to get you to explain your latest rant? Mt Warning is closed to arseholes like you Freediver....Why would I care if you cannot kill native animals and wander around pissed like a dickhead.....All you do is insult and put down Aboriginal people on your race hate site and promote likewise dickheads to do the same....I would be happy to see arseholes like you banned from all National Parks accross Australia....You are a pathetic racist piece of crap Freediver...You really are!!! :) :) :) What makes you think Mt Warning has anything to do with the native title act? Are you saying that you support racist government policies because you have your panties in a bunch over this forum? What happened to "never" supporting racist government policies? Do you have any principles at all, or does your opinion change depending on who you are thinking about at the time? I support Native Title and the decisions of the court....You haven't shown how the Government is racist by accepting the decision of the courts....Now you racist arseholes claim the law is racist because it is not on your side....Sucks to be you!!! :) :) :) I asked you about Mt Warning Phil. Do you need me to get out the crayons?

Phil?

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 12:43pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:08pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:05pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:11am: The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!! :) :) :) its not even that they can't piss there that is their problem. Frank couldn't climb up mt warning if he tried and I doubt FD ever even thought of it prior to the aborigines being given rights. Their real problem is that the govt dared to give aborigines any rights at all. Sets them off like electricity and water Are Abos a separate race? if there was a race of morons, you'd be their leader

So is there an Aboriginal race?

Don't be shy. 

Frank wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 1:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:43pm: Frank wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:08pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:05pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:11am: The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!! :) :) :) its not even that they can't piss there that is their problem. Frank couldn't climb up mt warning if he tried and I doubt FD ever even thought of it prior to the aborigines being given rights. Their real problem is that the govt dared to give aborigines any rights at all. Sets them off like electricity and water Are Abos a separate race? if there was a race of morons, you'd be their leader So is there an Aboriginal race? Don't be shy.

I'm sure you think you have a point :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 1:25pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 1:09pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:43pm: Frank wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:08pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:05pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:11am: The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!! :) :) :) its not even that they can't piss there that is their problem. Frank couldn't climb up mt warning if he tried and I doubt FD ever even thought of it prior to the aborigines being given rights. Their real problem is that the govt dared to give aborigines any rights at all. Sets them off like electricity and water Are Abos a separate race? if there was a race of morons, you'd be their leader So is there an Aboriginal race? Don't be shy.  I'm sure you think you have a point :D

It's not a hard question, not even for you.

Are Aborigines a separate race from, say, Anglo or European Australians? 
Do you really not understand the question?

Frank wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 1:31pm:

Are Aborigines a separate race from, say, Anglo or European Australians?  Do you really not understand the question?

Nope, they are all members of the human race, homo sapiens sapiens.  Even you are, Soren.  We all are.  None of us is of a separate race, we are all descended from African ancestors.  We can all interbreed.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian joined the military so he could join the Race War against Yellow people like in Vietnam.
It's ok to shoot and bomb Yellow people for Brian. That's not Racism.
Racism is only a Black thing.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 4:18pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 1:31pm: Are Aborigines a separate race from, say, Anglo or European Australians?  Do you really not understand the question? Nope, they are all members of the human race, homo sapiens sapiens.  Even you are, Soren.  We all are.  None of us is of a separate race, we are all descended from African ancestors.  We can all interbreed.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Why have separate laws, deparments, treatment, consideration for them? Why is there a 'them', anyway if they are not racially different?

What IS an Aborighine? Where does it end? Who is an Aborighine? Who is not? Why have a word for Aborighines if there is nothing different about them as they can interbreed? Why do some call themselves "proud" of something that doesn't exist? Are they stupid?

You have a dotorate, you could easily explain it to the rest of us. You are more educated th a n most, after all. Well, explain.


It looks like it might be about... er.. colour
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeXk_WsagAAmX7z?.jpg

Abos come from a haplogroup that was around long before Asians went yellow, Europeans went white and Africans went black.
Only the San come from an older haplogroup.

It's pretty obvious by the Abo's wavy hair, that they are closer to the Caucasus, than the Negroids or Mongoloids.

ABORIGINES ARE RACISTS.

When Europeans turned up here, they shouted "GO BACK TO WHERE YOU COME FROM"

...That RACISM has permeated down through the centuries to this day. Now everyone says it.

Diversity is not a strength for Aborigines.

Frank wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 1:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 1:25pm: Frank wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 1:09pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:43pm: Frank wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:08pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 12:05pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20th, 2024 at 11:11am: The poor racists are upset because the law prevents them shitting and pissing all over the place whilst they kill wildlife for recreation....Suck it up arseholes you are done!!! :) :) :) its not even that they can't piss there that is their problem. Frank couldn't climb up mt warning if he tried and I doubt FD ever even thought of it prior to the aborigines being given rights. Their real problem is that the govt dared to give aborigines any rights at all. Sets them off like electricity and water Are Abos a separate race? if there was a race of morons, you'd be their leader So is there an Aboriginal race? Don't be shy.  I'm sure you think you have a point :D It's not a hard question, not even for you. Are Aborigines a separate race from, say, Anglo or European Australians?  Do you really not understand the question?

You're right, the question is not hard. That doesn't make it any more relevant. I'll save you from embarrassing yourself further by telling you now that whatever point you think you're making, don't. Save yourself before you look even more stupid than usual.