Society/Culture Greens vow to move Australia Day

[Jello_B]

You're treating the changing of the flag, queen and anthem as if they are the end of the world. Clearly you're a monarchist, but given they do **** all anyway with our country, does it really matter? Are we that connected to old Queenie?

Gee you’re a pompous twit on here sometimes, I’m not a monarchist, nor have I referred anything resulting in the end of the world. I am speaking the truth. I am not that fussed either way, but I’d rather have a proper conversation than 20 years of debating the corners of one. I have commented previously I like the flag the way it is, but if it was changed I would support the alternative. Aren’t you an engineer, I am too, you’re logical thinking is askew colleague.

 

[Fat Yak]

Slippery slope is real here. There is a visible demonstration that after the date change it will be flag, Queen, anthem the whole shebang. These agendas are all connected, and hence we should talk about them as a collective. The question shouldn’t be around changing the date, it should be arrange changing our identity.

You nailed Jello, tear every thing down, rip up every thing Australian. The watermellons hate Australia.

 

[ShanDog]

Slippery slope is real here. There is a visible demonstration that after the date change it will be flag, Queen, anthem the whole shebang. These agendas are all connected, and hence we should talk about them as a collective. The question shouldn’t be around changing the date, it should be arrange changing our identity.

To clarify - are you suggesting that there is a causal slippery slope at play, in that if we change the date then necessarily the other examples will undoubtedly happen? Or are you suggesting that an argument for those further changes will be made if we change the date? There is a very important distinction in there.

 

[Jello_B]

I'll just leave this taken from WAR, you know that radicalised leftist movement you support that uses aboriginals as mere pawns in their ultimate goal

"In response to the attacks on WAR members and the call to burn Australia to the ground at the Naarm Abolish Australia Day Rally, we would like to issue the following statement:

F$@& Australia.
F$@& your land theft, your child stealing and your state sanctioned murders.
F$@&your governments, your military and your police.
F$@& your concentration camps dressed up as correctional facilities and immigration detention centres.
F$@&your economy, your greed and your cult of the almighty dollar.
F$@& your poisoning of water, your wholesale destruction of land and your pollution of our atmosphere.
F$@& your language forced upon us and violently attempting to replace our very own.
F$@& your white supremacy, your patriarchy and your capitalism.
F$@& your flag, your anthem and your precious national day.
WAR will not rest until we burn this entire rotten settler colony called Australia, illegally and violently imposed on stolen Aboriginal land at the expense of the blood of countless thousands, to the ******* ground, until every corrupt and illegal institution of white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist settler colonial power forced upon us is no more. We will not rest until we build a society that cares for and honours the Earth, our mother, that respects the interconnectedness of all beings, that is founded on our sovereignty and responsibility to this country and the people who live on it, and that offers a place of safety and prosperity for our people and for all those oppressed and excluded by the current systems of power - refugees, people of colour, LGBTQIA people, poor people, disabled people.
Abolish Australia, not just Australia Day"

I believe this was why you were marching anyway, their thinking is exactly in line with yours. It's quite sad really

How can anyone support this honestly.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Gee you’re a pompous twit on here sometimes, I’m not a monarchist, nor have I referred anything resulting in the end of the world. I am speaking the truth. I am not that fussed either way, but I’d rather have a proper conversation than 20 years of debating the corners of one. I have commented previously I like the flag the way it is, but if it was changed I would support the alternative. Aren’t you an engineer, I am too, you’re logical thinking is askew colleague.

You're the one bitching about a slippery slope towards changing the flag, queen etc. What other logical conclusion would come about? You only mention them because you like arguing about slippery slopes for fun?

 

[Bradesmaen]

You nailed Jello, tear every thing down, rip up every thing Australian. The watermellons hate Australia.

What are the institutions that the left have torn down? You mentioned this about 4 days ago, keep saying things like that in the above quote, yet whenever I ask you, you run away like a coward. Is that because there is nothing and you're mentioning it like an old man yelling at a cloud?

 

[ShanDog]

How can anyone support this honestly.

Because some people find it easier to blame the world for their predicaments rather than examine themselves.

 

[Jello_B]

You nailed Jello, tear every thing down, rip up every thing Australian. The watermellons hate Australia.

And this is what I am advocating, if we can agree what the final outcome should look like, then we can make some positive steps in that direction. I think the majority of people support ‘Australia’, so groups like WAR can gagf.

 

[strung_out7]

What are the institutions that the left have torn down? You mentioned this about 4 days ago, keep saying things like that in the above quote, yet whenever I ask you, you run away like a coward. Is that because there is nothing and you're mentioning it like an old man yelling at a cloud?

Should he start in 1917?

 

[Jello_B]

To clarify - are you suggesting that there is a causal slippery slope at play, in that if we change the date then necessarily the other examples will undoubtedly happen? Or are you suggesting that an argument for those further changes will be made if we change the date? There is a very important distinction in there.

There is no doubt there will be an argument as that is already happening. I can’t predict the future so I don’t know whether anything will undoubtedly happen.

I don’t know why people can’t call it what it is. There is a large group of people that want to significantly change the identity of Australia. There are some that are happy to change some elements. There are those that are happy with the way things are. I’m doing well in life, see opportunity for everyone so I’m happy the way it is.

This is not about a date.

 

[Full Wingspan]

I'm all ears.

As am I.

Is it to do with order / staying ahead of terrorists or something like that? I'm not taking a side in this (yet) but am keen to hear why you think this. philcara16

I intend to respond to your Procrastinator35 and kickazz later this week. This is a topic I have studied quite intensively and want to offer you a fairly detailed response when I have a bit more time.

To address your preliminary question it definitely does not have anything to do with protection from terrorists at the expense of individual liberties and freedoms. I feel very strongly on the powers that be using 'terrorism' as a catalyst to justify change or sacrificing rights. At the same time, I acknowledge I would be willing to give up some rights in order to safeguard others or ensure overall societal protections.

Some of the questions that require some thought include what exactly would an entrenched system of rights look like, would it be comprehensive and if so, how do we protect all of these rights simultaneously?

Human rights law often involves competing rights. What trumps freedom of speech, hate speech or a right to religious freedom? How does an entrenched rights system deal with these issues and is it the best mechanism to do so?

Is our existing rights system (statutory and the common law) doing enough to protect our rights? Is it too rigid or flexible or is it a system to exposed to abuse and outright dictatorship and tyranny?

 

[Jello_B]

You're the one bitching about a slippery slope towards changing the flag, queen etc. What other logical conclusion would come about? You only mention them because you like arguing about slippery slopes for fun?

How is making a comment bitching. I rate ShanDog as a poster and we are exchanging opinions. Our discussion is not an argument, and I hope they are taking it the way I am. Feel free to draw your conclusions elsewhere.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Slippery slope is real here. There is a visible demonstration that after the date change it will be flag, Queen, anthem the whole shebang. These agendas are all connected, and hence we should talk about them as a collective. The question shouldn’t be around changing the date, it should be arrange changing our identity.

There is no doubt there will be an argument as that is already happening. I can’t predict the future so I don’t know whether anything will undoubtedly happen.

I don’t know why people can’t call it what it is. There is a large group of people that want to significantly change the identity of Australia. There are some that are happy to change some elements. There are those that are happy with the way things are. I’m doing well in life, see opportunity for everyone so I’m happy the way it is.

This is not about a date.

How is making a comment bitching. I rate ShanDog as a poster and we are exchanging opinions. Our discussion is not an argument, and I hope they are taking it the way I am. Feel free to draw your conclusions elsewhere.

Now where would I get that idea...

 

[Jello_B]

Now where would I get that idea...

Do I need to add more please, may I, smiley faces etc... to my posting to make it more palatable for you? I’m sharing an opinion that I believe there should be a broader discussion around the direction of our national identity, and not limiting it to a date change. If your conclusions are that this is bitching than you are a fool.
If I’m wrong here ShanDog may you please accept my apology

 

[JeffDunne]

Because some people find it easier to blame the world for their predicaments rather than examine themselves.

Gee that's an enlightened outlook.

Every protest movement ever could be described the same way (& I'm sure they were).

 

[ShanDog]

There is no doubt there will be an argument as that is already happening. I can’t predict the future so I don’t know whether anything will undoubtedly happen.

I don’t know why people can’t call it what it is. There is a large group of people that want to significantly change the identity of Australia. There are some that are happy to change some elements. There are those that are happy with the way things are. I’m doing well in life, see opportunity for everyone so I’m happy the way it is.

This is not about a date.

See I have no problem with you saying the argument about those things will come if we change the date, BUT, it's not a reason to add against changing the date itself. You have to take each "question" and argue it on merit, not a perceived future question.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Do I need to add more please, may I, smiley faces etc... to my posting to make it more palatable for you? I’m sharing an opinion that I believe there should be a broader discussion around the direction of our national identity, and not limiting it to a date change. If your conclusions are that this is bitching than you are a fool.
If I’m wrong here ShanDog may you please accept my apology

Whether or not that is your conclusion is irrelevant, it is the way you have constructed your argument by saying it's a slippery slope, when it really isn't. All subsequent actions such as a republic and changing the flag (which will happen at the same time if it ever happens) will have a discussion accompanying it, but none of it will be related to the changing of a date for Australia day.

 

[Jello_B]

See I have no problem with you saying the argument about those things will come if we change the date, BUT, it's not a reason to add against changing the date itself. You have to take each "question" and argue it on merit, not a perceived future question.

May I please respectfully disagree with this setting a future objective / goal and taking steps towards that invariably results in a better outcome, otherwise our direction can become unaligned and without direction.
What are your concerns with discussing the broader question?

 

[ShanDog]

Gee that's an enlightened outlook.

Every protest movement ever could be described the same way (& I'm sure they were).

Sounds like someone needs some JBP.



Don't confuse a single sentence reduction as an ill-thought out ideology.

 

[Jello_B]

Whether or not that is your conclusion is irrelevant, it is the way you have constructed your argument by saying it's a slippery slope, when it really isn't. All subsequent actions such as a republic and changing the flag (which will happen at the same time if it ever happens) will have a discussion accompanying it, but none of it will be related to the changing of a date for Australia day.

Are you saying that no one who is in political alignment (and this is where SSM slippery slope differs as it was the opposite end of the political spectrum introducing the concepts of marrying their grandmother) is currently associating changing the date, flag, republic. These things all seem pretty relatable to me.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Are you saying that no one who is in political alignment (and this is where SSM slippery slope differs as it was the opposite end of the political spectrum introducing the concepts of marrying their grandmother) is currently associating changing the date, flag, republic. These things all seem pretty relatable to me.

I never said no one, but at the same time, not a large group of people and they are not related. I want to change the date for Australia day, I would also like us to become a republic and change our hideous flag. But at no point am I saying because I want to change the date for Australia day, I want us to become a republic. They are completely separate issues and always have been.

 

[JeffDunne]

Don't confuse a single sentence reduction as an ill-thought out ideology.

Ironic response given the post I quoted.

 

[ShanDog]

Whether or not that is your conclusion is irrelevant, it is the way you have constructed your argument by saying it's a slippery slope, when it really isn't. All subsequent actions such as a republic and changing the flag (which will happen at the same time if it ever happens) will have a discussion accompanying it, but none of it will be related to the changing of a date for Australia day.

Exactly this.

Because, Jello_B as you question below:

May I please respectfully disagree with this setting a future objective / goal and taking steps towards that invariably results in a better outcome, otherwise our direction can become unaligned and without direction.
What are your concerns with discussing the broader question?

I have huge concerns with ideologues hijacking a date change for their own malevolent purposes. BUT, it's still right to change the date IMO. When those additional arguments that you have been brought up start being made, then they will also be judged on merit.

 

[ShanDog]

Ironic response given the post I quoted.

How?

 

[Jello_B]

I never said no one, but at the same time, not a large group of people and they are not related. I want to change the date for Australia day, I would also like us to become a republic and change our hideous flag. But at no point am I saying because I want to change the date for Australia day, I want us to become a republic. They are completely separate issues and always have been.

So you coincidentally want to do all the things that I have said, but they are not related to any sort of political or cultural ideology. I mean carn. If the slippery slope terminology is creating this blindness, call it an abrasive incline instead.