Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 10
th, 2024 at 8:59pm:
We's just doing what you do - go back to the same thing over and over ... no point................ debating............ with you and posting links and such for you to comment on, discuss and .................... debate ....................... you never read them ..............find it annoying, do you?
That's not the voice - the voice was a 26 page racist, divisive set of demands that was defeated, and is being pursued piece by piece behind the voter's backs at the State and Federal level, and it was a waste of time and money. The voice is stated in the Uluru Statement as being the first foot in the door to everything else on demand there, and was never 'just an advisory body'.
There is no debate. This isn't a morning show where a scientist sits opposite Shelly from the local club talking about vaccinating children against Measles.
You are not entitled to a false equivalency where your fantasy is considered as weighted as reality.
You're factually wrong.
The Voice is one of the aims of the Uluru Statement, along with Treaty and Truth telling.
The Uluru Statement contains The Voice, not IS the Voice.
And the 26 pages you're referring to is the Referendum Council's Final Report, released in 2017 and is not the Uluru Statement or The Voice either for that matter.
These are statements of fact that you cannot wish away.
Hard truths.
As you say in your signature,
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”What you're trying to do is say that Pizza is Cheese.
No, Pizza contains Cheese, but it isn't Cheese.
And Cheese isn't Italian food.
Italian food may contain Pizza, and Pizza may contain cheese, but not the other way around.
I can't believe we're at the point where we really need to explain it to you like you're a 5-year-old, and a dim one at that.
But let's be honest (big ask for you I know).
The reason you're trying to link all these complaints you have to The Voice, is that it was accepted that even academics could object to The Voice on perfectly legitimate grounds without being thought of as racist or bigoted.
Most academics who did object did so on the grounds that altering the Constitution was a problem and could create unforeseen legal issues in the future. Given the little information we had, including no wording to the actual amendments, it was a perfectly valid concern.
Most of these academics did not object to the overall Uluru Statement, however.
This, as well as intellect and honesty, is where you differ from them.
Your problem with Indigenous Australians existed before the Voice, before the Uluru statement and is why you're trying to shoehorn every possible Indigenous issue into the package of "The Voice" to try and hide that reality.
Not only are you being disingenuous and dishonest about The Voice, what it was and wasn't, but you're trying to pretend your motivations are pure, which it's been obvious since before the voice was even a blip on the radar that you held hatred toward them.
You regularly used racial slurs, claimed the British should have killed them all when invading and before the whole 10% worth saving shenanigans, you suggested they should be shot on site yourself, not just chimed into someone else's claim.
You have a long history you're trying to cover up under the guise of debate over the Voice, and it's not fooling anyone.
Forum
Pages: 
