John Smith wrote on Nov 13
th, 2017 at 9:03pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 13
th, 2017 at 8:21pm:
John Smith wrote on Nov 13
th, 2017 at 7:26pm:
Bobby. wrote on Nov 13
th, 2017 at 7:18pm:
John Smith wrote on Nov 13
th, 2017 at 7:11pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 13
th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
John if the government handed Bondi Beach to a group of white people, with the expectation that they would ban all women and non-white men in accordance with their religious views, and that ownership would be an exclusive birthright of their children, would you insist that it is not racist so long as there was a theoretical possibility of them letting a non-white person in who adopted their religion and culture?
blah blah blah ....
lots of groups of white people own land around bondi that I am restricted from accessing FD. Why isn't that racism?
A very weak answer.
I never expected you to get it booby. you rarely do.
John why does the fact that all Australians, regardless of race, have a right to purchase property near Bondi Beach
Just as every australian has the right to purchase control of Uluru . ... if the current owners were so inclined to sell.
you can keep pretending it's racist till you're blue in the face, it won't help you.
No they do not John. The right is reserved exclusively for a racial group. 40 pages in and you still can't get the basic facts straight. They cannot sell it even if they want to.
John Smith wrote on Nov 13
th, 2017 at 9:06pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 13
th, 2017 at 8:21pm:
If the government handed control of Bondi Beach to a group of white people,
Why just bondi FD?? Govt. has given control off many beaches to white man. Were they racist?
Back to stupid eh John? No Australian beaches are reserved exclusively for one racial group, except for a few Aboriginal ones.
Quote:the fact that aborigines spirituality is centred around natural objects as opposed to man made shrines, temples and statues does not make them any less significant to their religious beliefs.
This is about the law John. Refusing to impose their religious beliefs on other people with the heavy hand of the law says nothing at all about the significance of their beliefs to them. It is simply a basic and necessary principle for a functioning civilisation.
Let's try for John's fifth jellyfish impersonation:
If the government handed control of Bondi Beach to a group of white people, with the expectation that they would ban all women and non-white men in accordance with their religious views, and that control over the beach would be an exclusive birthright of their children, would you insist that it is not racist so long as there was a theoretical possibility of them letting a non-white person in who adopted their religion and culture?
Is it dawning on you how idiotic your argument is yet? Or does it still need some work?
PZ:
Quote:I don't know if this is the case, but what if the Aborigines believe the Rock contains a spirit? What if they believe it is alive?
What if they believe that tourists from all over the world are disrespecting, desecrating the home of that spirit?
What if the Aborigines have had to watch this happening for decades but didn't have the voice or the confidence to complain? Then they were provided a voice, or found their voice and said, 'No more. Keep off that rock. It might be just a big rock to you, but it's actually a lot more than that to us '
So what? Are you saying the law should intervene to protect people's superstitions?
Quote:I don't know if that's how they feel of course. Tourists aren't allowed to climb the pyramids at Giza any longer though, are they? And tourists have to accept tha
This isn't Egypt. Our women don't get pack raped on the streets either. We like to set the bar a little higher.
Quote:People aren't allowed to remove flora from our national parks.
Aborigines often are. Does that seem racist to you? Or are you blind to racism when it is wrapped in the woolly fuzz of political correctness?