Is there an Atheist preference for the Democratic party going on here?

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
4,957
4,099
✟181,795.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What inequalities are you talking about then?

That's what a disparity is....an inequality measured at some point as an outcome.

If you start bringing up disparities....You're talking about inequalities of outcomes.
You are almost impossible to talk to. You don't listen, you don't try to understand, you think that only you are bestowed with the capability to know what REALLY is going on.

I've tried several times to explain things to you, but your resistance to listening is very strong and your capability to grasp some concepts is extremely weak. What's the point?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
32,566
9,376
✟349,463.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are almost impossible to talk to.

Here come those personal attacks.

I acknowledge that I jumped the gun there when I assumed you were talking about disparities and equal outcomes. I also jumped the gun when I pointed out these are Marxist ideas that always fail.

I'm sorry. I didn't include those things in my reply because I realized this.

Maybe you weren't even talking about disparities....my mistake.

What do you mean by "inequalities"?

I've tried several times to explain things to you, but your resistance to listening is very strong and your capability to grasp some concepts is extremely weak. What's the point?

I apologized for making assumptions.

If you meant something other than what I wrote when you mentioned "inequalities"....I'd love to hear it

This would be a great opportunity for you to prove to me that I'm the one struggling to grasp these concepts.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
32,566
9,376
✟349,463.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Are you a guy who likes to consider the probabilistic likelihood of outcomes sometimes known as a "betting man" @BPPLEE ?

Because we've hit that sort of point in the thread wherein the person I've engaged with is given a chance to explain themselves and if it's an explanation that doesn't substantially differ in any way to the one I gave....

Then we can safely guess his reply will be....

1. An attack on my character, ad hominems, etc....which I just see as evidence that I am completely correct about what he meant by "inequalities".

2. Ignoring me/refusing to answer/leaving....which I also see as evidence that I'm correct.

3. A completely different explanation for the word "inequalities" that in no way refers to racial disparities....or at least refers to them in such a different manner than I have, that there's some meaningful difference I would have to acknowledge.

I'm already pretty sure I'd put it at #1 = 49%, #2 =49%.....and number #3 = 2%.

And I'm only giving #3 2% because it's at least possible, right? I don't recall it ever happening....but it might some day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2018
8,726
6,273
69
Bondi
✟126,773.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You can't share sovereignty. I'm curious as to how you would argue that you have the right to deny them sovereignty over their own lands?

The Native Title Act of 1993 (following on from Mabo v Queensland) clarified the situation. It declared that Australia was not Terra Nullius when the Brits arrived and that native title to any land would, and does, remain. But as the judge in the case that led to the act said:

'However, when the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgment of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of native title has disappeared. Thus although over some parts of Australia native title has been lost, in large areas of the nation's interior, native title could be recognised.'

So almost half of Australia is formally recognised as native land as we stand today. But as I said earlier, it's a difficult decision to decide when the 'tide of history' has resulted in a loss of land when there are competing interests. It's an ongoing discussion. And vastly too complex to use metaphorical bikes being stolen to illustrate it.

As our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs says:

'As the Hon Sir Francis Gerard Brennan held in the lead judgment, "it is imperative in today 's world that the common law should neither be nor be seen to be frozen in an age of racial discrimination."

Mabo threw out the legal doctrine of terra nullius and paved the way for the Native Title Act. The Government continues to work on reconciliation and the long overdue recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our constitution.

As former Prime Minister Paul Keating said in his Redfern Park speech, "by doing away with the bizarre conceit that this continent had no owners prior to the settlement of Europeans, Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice."

We have come a long way, as a nation, since Mabo, but we are painfully aware of how much further we still need to travel before we have true reconciliation.'
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
32,566
9,376
✟349,463.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It seems odd to me that a thread about whether atheists are Democrats has devolved into a thread on race.

Aren't you in China?

How are things going? I know you can't tell me so just stay silent if you have learned "fractional banking" isn't much different from a ponzi scheme and a lot of banks are collapsing and no one can get their money and civil unrest is imminent.

Or if you think you're being watched *wink wink* you can just say everything is fine *wink wink*.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
17,234
4,530
63
✟252,753.00
Faith
Pentecostal
The Native Title Act of 1993 (following on from Mabo v Queensland) clarified the situation. It declared that Australia was not Terra Nullius when the Brits arrived and that native title to any land would, and does, remain. But as the judge in the case that led to the act said:

'However, when the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgment of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of native title has disappeared. Thus although over some parts of Australia native title has been lost, in large areas of the nation's interior, native title could be recognised.'

So almost half of Australia is formally recognised as native land as we stand today. But as I said earlier, it's a difficult decision to decide when the 'tide of history' has resulted in a loss of land when there are competing interests. It's an ongoing discussion. And vastly too complex to use metaphorical bikes being stolen to illustrate it.

As our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs says:

'As the Hon Sir Francis Gerard Brennan held in the lead judgment, "it is imperative in today 's world that the common law should neither be nor be seen to be frozen in an age of racial discrimination."

Mabo threw out the legal doctrine of terra nullius and paved the way for the Native Title Act. The Government continues to work on reconciliation and the long overdue recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our constitution.

As former Prime Minister Paul Keating said in his Redfern Park speech, "by doing away with the bizarre conceit that this continent had no owners prior to the settlement of Europeans, Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice."

We have come a long way, as a nation, since Mabo, but we are painfully aware of how much further we still need to travel before we have true reconciliation.'

Yeah you guys still live on stolen land.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
32,566
9,376
✟349,463.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The Native Title Act of 1993 (following on from Mabo v Queensland) clarified the situation. It declared that Australia was not Terra Nullius when the Brits arrived and that native title to any land would, and does, remain. But as the judge in the case that led to the act said:

'However, when the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgment of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of native title has disappeared. Thus although over some parts of Australia native title has been lost, in large areas of the nation's interior, native title could be recognised.'

So almost half of Australia is formally recognised as native land as we stand today. But as I said earlier, it's a difficult decision to decide when the 'tide of history' has resulted in a loss of land when there are competing interests. It's an ongoing discussion. And vastly too complex to use metaphorical bikes being stolen to illustrate it.

As our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs says:

'As the Hon Sir Francis Gerard Brennan held in the lead judgment, "it is imperative in today 's world that the common law should neither be nor be seen to be frozen in an age of racial discrimination."

Mabo threw out the legal doctrine of terra nullius and paved the way for the Native Title Act. The Government continues to work on reconciliation and the long overdue recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our constitution.

As former Prime Minister Paul Keating said in his Redfern Park speech, "by doing away with the bizarre conceit that this continent had no owners prior to the settlement of Europeans, Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice."

We have come a long way, as a nation, since Mabo, but we are painfully aware of how much further we still need to travel before we have true reconciliation.'

Right so....if they can find and prove a particularly strong claim to land ownership, there's the possibility that an aborigine could go to court and win....

Otherwise you're willing to hand back the large parts that are mostly uninhabitable anyway.

Bravo.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
32,566
9,376
✟349,463.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah you guys still live on stolen land.

"We were wrong....this land definitely had prior owners....but you know, we're keeping all the good parts on the coasts."

Australia v Hypocrisy 2022.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
32,566
9,376
✟349,463.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I bet no one even remembers how it got started.

Page 4....

But you know, when you only have 1 way to address any criticism of values or beliefs....and that's by attacking the person making the criticism....you end up pretty far from the OP.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2018
8,726
6,273
69
Bondi
✟126,773.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Otherwise you're willing to hand back the large parts that are mostly uninhabitable anyway.

They've lived where you consider to be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. And many areas are mineral rich. From the central Land Council (an Aboriginal organisation):

'The mining provisions in Part IV of the act give Aboriginal landowners meaningful control over their land while providing mining and energy interests with an ordered, transparent and equitable access procedure.

The act protects and advances the interests of traditional owners of the land, setting out the principles and processes that allow us to support free prior-informed decision making and, where Aboriginal people consent, to make mutually beneficial agreements with resource companies.

Traditional owners typically gain sacred site and environmental protection, financial compensation and employment and training opportunities.'

They class the Land Rights agreement as 'the most effective Aboriginal land rights legislation in Australia for Aboriginal people and resource developers alike.'

Making mining agreements - Central Land Council

But lots more work to be done. It's a work in progress.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2018
8,726
6,273
69
Bondi
✟126,773.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"We were wrong....this land definitely had prior owners....but you know, we're keeping all the good parts on the coasts."

All Crown land is accessible for claims. But not Freehold (see judges comments a few posts upstream).
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2018
8,726
6,273
69
Bondi
✟126,773.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Are you going to give it all back?
I can't believe you still live there.

See, yet again, the judges comments upstream. How long should anyone wait before claiming freehold? A nice topic for debate. Discuss, using other examples from New Zealand, the UK and anywhere in the Americas.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
17,234
4,530
63
✟252,753.00
Faith
Pentecostal
See, yet again, the judges comments upstream. How long should anyone wait before claiming freehold? A nice topic for debate. Discuss, using other examples from New Zealand, the UK and anywhere in the Americas.

It doesn't matter. They all owned everything until you guys came along. They shouldn't have to prove anything. All the land was theirs. All they should have to do is prove their ancestry and then get whatever they want. Cause it belonged to them already.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2018
8,726
6,273
69
Bondi
✟126,773.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't matter. They all owned everything until you guys came along. They shouldn't have to prove anything. All the land was theirs. All they should have to do is prove their ancestry and then get whatever they want. Cause it belonged to them already.

That will then apply to much of the UK. Do we give it back to the Celts (that'll be me in fact). And to a lot of South America. Kick the Spaniards and Portuguese out? And Canada. And NZ. And certainly the US. Much of which was taken a lot later than the area where I actually live right now. The South West very recently indeed.

What's your time limit? Let me know so we can start redrawing the maps.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
32,566
9,376
✟349,463.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
They've lived where you consider to be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. And many areas are mineral rich. From the central Land Council (an Aboriginal organisation):

'The mining provisions in Part IV of the act give Aboriginal landowners meaningful control over their land while providing mining and energy interests with an ordered, transparent and equitable access procedure.

The act protects and advances the interests of traditional owners of the land, setting out the principles and processes that allow us to support free prior-informed decision making and, where Aboriginal people consent, to make mutually beneficial agreements with resource companies.

Traditional owners typically gain sacred site and environmental protection, financial compensation and employment and training opportunities.'

They class the Land Rights agreement as 'the most effective Aboriginal land rights legislation in Australia for Aboriginal people and resource developers alike.'

Making mining agreements - Central Land Council

But lots more work to be done. It's a work in progress.

And profit sharing, right? These companies aren't going to pull billions in wealth out of the ground, give them "training opportunities" and call it a day will they?

I can only imagine how that's going to play out. A real digiree-doosey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0