With a two-letter word, Australians struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.
U said and i quote “This is bad-faith behaviour, and the kind of nonsense I see from the likes of closet Nazis” pretty clearly implying they are a nazi ill concede u didnt outright call em a nazi if u bute the bullet and admit u just used the same bad faith inplication that you accused them of. Sounds hyporcritcal to me.
So according to u its systematic which would imply the system is working against them. Would a system without racism not equally effect everyone whos part of it? If so then either ur wrong and the syatem isnt agains them or u are implying racism and therefore race is the root cause. Im not sure u truely beleive in anything except that which fits the natative u already have in ur head.
No i knew u would read it before responding and thus to prove me wrong would not lose it and call me a nazi (i like to think of it as reasonability insurance).
Lied about lieing now thats just a catch 22 at best and a logical paradox at the worst.
The only thing my entire argument is grounded in is u having no ability to understand any perspective other than ur own and that i dont beleive we should make any division based on race. You just called both tgese lies so please demonstrate otherwise.
If ur willing to concede thinking im a lier that would mean ur willing to concede on what u think is reality, thats prerry telling of u as a whole.
Ur welcome to call me a moron i emplore you to continue to use schoolgrpund insults and demonstrate ur superior intelect.
ill concede u didnt outright call em a nazi if u bute the bullet and admit u just used the same bad faith inplication that you accused them of. Sounds hyporcritcal to me.
Any ambiguity about this “implication” gets cleared up pretty damn quickly when I explicitly said “I don’t think you’re a Nazi”, no?
So according to u its systematic which would imply the system is working against them. Would a system without racism not equally effect everyone whos part of it?
Call it what your like - the system has measurably different outcomes for people of different races - do you deny the disparity in outcome, or do you behove the disparity is genetic? Either position is ridiculous. Alternatively, feel free to bring an alternative forward. In any case, in a racist system, the victims of that racism aren’t the problem - the racism is - whether it be a product of active malice, or just the well-intentioned product of a carelessly designed system. Where are you going with this?
No i knew u would read it before responding and thus to prove me wrong would not lose it and call me a nazi (i like to think of it as reasonability insurance).
Totally non-falsifiable, and irrelevant. You’re awfully concerned about being called a Nazi by someone on the internet that isn’t calling you a Nazi or even saying anything that implies anything of the sort. You presumably know you’re not a Nazi - even if I were to call you one, it would change nothing, and I’d look dumb if I didn’t substantiate it. It’s weird - get past it.
Lied about lieing now thats just a catch 22 at best and a logical paradox at the worst.
I am from the moon. I never said I was from the moon - a lie about a lie. No paradox… Unless you’d like to join the dots there?
The only thing my entire argument is grounded in is u having no ability to understand any perspective other than ur own and that i dont beleive we should make any division based on race.You just called both tgese lies so please demonstrate otherwise.
The system as it stands has massive disparities in outcomes along racial lines. To defend the status quo is to defend the materially worse outcomes for indigenous Australians. That’s an existing, measurable divide along racial lines that I’d like to bring to a place of equality. The closest I came to a comment about not being able to understand a perspective other than my own was to mock the notion that your perspective was based on reality after pointing out that it’s based on lies. There’s yet another lie. Again, quote me if I’m wrong.
If ur willing to concede thinking im a lier that would mean ur willing to concede on what u think is reality, thats prerry telling of u as a whole.
I’ve pointed to the clear lies (or the alternative idiocy explanation) - with this in mind, one of the following is true…
You don’t believe the perspective you’re putting forward
You believe the perspective, but need to lie to defend it (this is what I suspect), meaning it’s indefensible at worst, or it’s not worth hearing from you at best
You’re too dumb to comprehend simple statements I’ve made (e.g. I don’t think you’re a Nazi), or engage with reality - worthless either way.
What idiot would take a position they’ve proven is based on lies seriously?
Ur welcome to call me a moron i emplore you to continue to use schoolgrpund insults and demonstrate ur superior intelect.
Thanks for the post-hoc permission, but there’s no pride in clearing such a low bar.
I’m never going to know if I’m right that you’re lying to defend your genuine perspective, but I’ll ask anyway - if you need to lie to defend your positions, why do you cling to them… Why not just take an honest position? It makes life far simpler, and if you’re refining those positions when you learn they’re indefensible, they’ll get better over time.
Any ambiguity about this “implication” gets cleared up pretty damn quickly when I explicitly said “I don’t think you’re a Nazi”, no?
Absolutely not that’s like me saying i punch anyone who is a Nazi then proceeding to punch you then say well i don’t think you a Nazi. The implication still stands now its just ass-covering in the shallowest form.
Previously u said “You lied about me assuming the root cause is race - I never said this, and heavily implied it’s systemic (rather than genetic).” i used logic to prove it being systemic is a race issue hence without race the issue would not exist therefore it is a problem of race/racism. You talk a lot about how “the system has measurably different outcomes for people of different races” without race you cannot make that measurement hence you are either unnecessarily defining an issue by race or the race itself is the issue I highly doubt its the race itself and in fact would actively fight against such a notion. I was simply pointing out how the Lie I allegedly told was actually just the logical extension of your very own assertion.
Totally non-falsifiable, and irrelevant. You’re awfully concerned about being called a Nazi by someone on the internet that isn’t calling you a Nazi or even saying anything that implies anything of the sort. You presumably know you’re not a Nazi - even if I were to call you one, it would change nothing, and I’d look dumb if I didn’t substantiate it. It’s weird - get past it.
I was simply defending some innocent person (who did not appear to be a Nazi) who you implied was a Nazi. It is not falsifiable hence why i said i think of it as insurance (seems to be working). My perspective believes that implying something is just the cowards way of saying something hence didn’t lie you called him a Nazi (Or don’t have balls to actually say it).
I am from the moon. I never said I was from the moon - a lie about a lie. No paradox… Unless you’d like to join the dots there?
Ok so its a catch 22 like a fee fee or a punishment for being punished.
The system as it stands has massive disparities in outcomes along racial lines. To defend the status quo is to defend the materially worse outcomes for indigenous Australians. That’s an existing, measurable divide along racial lines that I’d like to bring to a place of equality. The closest I came to a comment about not being able to understand a perspective other than my own was to mock the notion that your perspective was based on reality after pointing out that it’s based on lies. There’s yet another lie. Again, quote me if I’m wrong.
so the system effects the race and to fix the system you wish to address the race is that is that a solution to a symptom or are you not simply separating the way u refer to the same thing would that not mean that it is one in the same would that not also mean it is a different same way of refer to the root cause of the issue. I only assumed you believed the root cause was race/racism because I though u where smart enough to address a root cause not a symptom.
I have never defended the status quo simply that there should not be a divide of race within the constitution. As i said many many replied ago its a correlation to argue anything else is to argue that its race (the system as u put it see paragraph above). So far I have logically proven why every aspect of my perspective you have called a lie is in fact based in reality, will it be perfect no! But then again nobodies perspective is. You might find this hard to comprehend but 2 perspectives can be based in the same reality same facts and fundamentally disagree.
I’ve pointed to the clear lies (or the alternative idiocy explanation) - with this in mind, one of the following is true…
You don’t believe the perspective you’re putting forward
You believe the perspective, but need to lie to defend it (this is what I suspect), meaning it’s indefensible at worst, or it’s not worth hearing from you at best
You’re too dumb to comprehend simple statements I’ve made (e.g. I don’t think you’re a Nazi), or engage with reality - worthless either way.
so i just went back to make it abundantly clear why every so called “lie” i have allegedly told is in fact the logical extension of ur beliefs or in fact grounded in reality/common inference.
You’re too dumb to comprehend simple statements I’ve made (e.g. I don’t think you’re a Nazi), or engage with reality - worthless either way.
Ive never said u called me a Nazi i simply ensured that ur ego would prevent u from falling back on it and force u to rely on logic. Now we have established you calling me a lier was in fact one of 3 options u provided above please enlighten me to when when i have failed to engage with reality (make sure to include this as a list will make it easier for me to cut strait to the point and disprove them).
Now let me explain the fourth option you have failed to provide.
I provided a perspective that dividing race in the constitution goes against equality and can be argued is in fact racist itself. You where unwilling to accept this perspective and tried to steer the argument away from this to focus on other issues (the system). I agree the system is broken and actively argued we should address it and not race. You still pushing that we should address race than blamed the system and called me a lier for assuming by the system u meant race/racism. You then completely derailed the entire discussion preferring to take moral high ground and leave my whole original point alone because you cannot reconcile that perhaps dividing based upon race is in fact all the things you stand against while actively defending such a decision.
U said and i quote “This is bad-faith behaviour, and the kind of nonsense I see from the likes of closet Nazis” pretty clearly implying they are a nazi ill concede u didnt outright call em a nazi if u bute the bullet and admit u just used the same bad faith inplication that you accused them of. Sounds hyporcritcal to me.
So according to u its systematic which would imply the system is working against them. Would a system without racism not equally effect everyone whos part of it? If so then either ur wrong and the syatem isnt agains them or u are implying racism and therefore race is the root cause. Im not sure u truely beleive in anything except that which fits the natative u already have in ur head.
No i knew u would read it before responding and thus to prove me wrong would not lose it and call me a nazi (i like to think of it as reasonability insurance).
Lied about lieing now thats just a catch 22 at best and a logical paradox at the worst.
The only thing my entire argument is grounded in is u having no ability to understand any perspective other than ur own and that i dont beleive we should make any division based on race. You just called both tgese lies so please demonstrate otherwise.
If ur willing to concede thinking im a lier that would mean ur willing to concede on what u think is reality, thats prerry telling of u as a whole.
Ur welcome to call me a moron i emplore you to continue to use schoolgrpund insults and demonstrate ur superior intelect.
Any ambiguity about this “implication” gets cleared up pretty damn quickly when I explicitly said “I don’t think you’re a Nazi”, no?
Call it what your like - the system has measurably different outcomes for people of different races - do you deny the disparity in outcome, or do you behove the disparity is genetic? Either position is ridiculous. Alternatively, feel free to bring an alternative forward. In any case, in a racist system, the victims of that racism aren’t the problem - the racism is - whether it be a product of active malice, or just the well-intentioned product of a carelessly designed system. Where are you going with this?
Totally non-falsifiable, and irrelevant. You’re awfully concerned about being called a Nazi by someone on the internet that isn’t calling you a Nazi or even saying anything that implies anything of the sort. You presumably know you’re not a Nazi - even if I were to call you one, it would change nothing, and I’d look dumb if I didn’t substantiate it. It’s weird - get past it.
I am from the moon. I never said I was from the moon - a lie about a lie. No paradox… Unless you’d like to join the dots there?
The system as it stands has massive disparities in outcomes along racial lines. To defend the status quo is to defend the materially worse outcomes for indigenous Australians. That’s an existing, measurable divide along racial lines that I’d like to bring to a place of equality. The closest I came to a comment about not being able to understand a perspective other than my own was to mock the notion that your perspective was based on reality after pointing out that it’s based on lies. There’s yet another lie. Again, quote me if I’m wrong.
I’ve pointed to the clear lies (or the alternative idiocy explanation) - with this in mind, one of the following is true…
You don’t believe the perspective you’re putting forward
You believe the perspective, but need to lie to defend it (this is what I suspect), meaning it’s indefensible at worst, or it’s not worth hearing from you at best
You’re too dumb to comprehend simple statements I’ve made (e.g. I don’t think you’re a Nazi), or engage with reality - worthless either way.
What idiot would take a position they’ve proven is based on lies seriously?
Thanks for the post-hoc permission, but there’s no pride in clearing such a low bar.
I’m never going to know if I’m right that you’re lying to defend your genuine perspective, but I’ll ask anyway - if you need to lie to defend your positions, why do you cling to them… Why not just take an honest position? It makes life far simpler, and if you’re refining those positions when you learn they’re indefensible, they’ll get better over time.
Absolutely not that’s like me saying i punch anyone who is a Nazi then proceeding to punch you then say well i don’t think you a Nazi. The implication still stands now its just ass-covering in the shallowest form.
Previously u said “You lied about me assuming the root cause is race - I never said this, and heavily implied it’s systemic (rather than genetic).” i used logic to prove it being systemic is a race issue hence without race the issue would not exist therefore it is a problem of race/racism. You talk a lot about how “the system has measurably different outcomes for people of different races” without race you cannot make that measurement hence you are either unnecessarily defining an issue by race or the race itself is the issue I highly doubt its the race itself and in fact would actively fight against such a notion. I was simply pointing out how the Lie I allegedly told was actually just the logical extension of your very own assertion.
I was simply defending some innocent person (who did not appear to be a Nazi) who you implied was a Nazi. It is not falsifiable hence why i said i think of it as insurance (seems to be working). My perspective believes that implying something is just the cowards way of saying something hence didn’t lie you called him a Nazi (Or don’t have balls to actually say it).
Ok so its a catch 22 like a fee fee or a punishment for being punished.
so the system effects the race and to fix the system you wish to address the race is that is that a solution to a symptom or are you not simply separating the way u refer to the same thing would that not mean that it is one in the same would that not also mean it is a different same way of refer to the root cause of the issue. I only assumed you believed the root cause was race/racism because I though u where smart enough to address a root cause not a symptom.
I have never defended the status quo simply that there should not be a divide of race within the constitution. As i said many many replied ago its a correlation to argue anything else is to argue that its race (the system as u put it see paragraph above). So far I have logically proven why every aspect of my perspective you have called a lie is in fact based in reality, will it be perfect no! But then again nobodies perspective is. You might find this hard to comprehend but 2 perspectives can be based in the same reality same facts and fundamentally disagree.
so i just went back to make it abundantly clear why every so called “lie” i have allegedly told is in fact the logical extension of ur beliefs or in fact grounded in reality/common inference.
Ive never said u called me a Nazi i simply ensured that ur ego would prevent u from falling back on it and force u to rely on logic. Now we have established you calling me a lier was in fact one of 3 options u provided above please enlighten me to when when i have failed to engage with reality (make sure to include this as a list will make it easier for me to cut strait to the point and disprove them).
Now let me explain the fourth option you have failed to provide. I provided a perspective that dividing race in the constitution goes against equality and can be argued is in fact racist itself. You where unwilling to accept this perspective and tried to steer the argument away from this to focus on other issues (the system). I agree the system is broken and actively argued we should address it and not race. You still pushing that we should address race than blamed the system and called me a lier for assuming by the system u meant race/racism. You then completely derailed the entire discussion preferring to take moral high ground and leave my whole original point alone because you cannot reconcile that perhaps dividing based upon race is in fact all the things you stand against while actively defending such a decision.