Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Australians will see through the Indigenous Voice ‘scare campaigns’: Patrick Gorman" video.

Why isn’t constitutional recognition a decent reason?
2
@dfor50 That was not the Question. A voice is constitutional recognition, but you are correct it is an advisory body that recognises indigenous rights.
1
@dfor50 How much say do you have into the CSIROs or productivity commission or umpteen other advisory bodies to parliament and the executive. Your argument is illogical.
1
@dfor50 Exactly and an indigenous advisory body to government is not different any any way. What exactly is your real argument? Why are so terrified of an indigenous advisory body? Why are you scared of it? To the the point of illogical reason. What is it you are so petrified of? Is it that the indigenous community will be able to voice an opinion?
1
@dfor50 Again you are just fundamentally factually wrong. There is only one race (human or homo sapian) indigenous people get constitutional recognition because they are legally the original owners of the land as a cultural group. Race has literally absolutely nothing to do with it. This is the reason why your illogical arguments are being ignored.
1
@BlackStump172 So every point you raised is false 1) The constitutional amendment is in the public domain. It is clear and precise in its wording. 2) It is not based on race, but is based on a cultural group who are legally recognised as the original inhabitants of Australia. 3) There is no racial segregation element whatsoever in the voice. It is an advisory body. Calling it Apartheid is dishonest. 4) The Uluru statement involved 9 years of consultation debate and discussion involving over 6000 indigenous people from every part of Australia. Your comment about it is a dishonest lie. 5) The structure of the voice is ground up. All regions and remote communities will have representation. This is explicitly layed out in the reports to government. Again your comments are mischievous lies. 6) There is no suggestion by any indigenous person you are less Australian. This comment is a nonsensical strawman argument that is fallacious. 7) And finally you completely misunderstand political representation (one vote per person) and constitutional recognition (an advisory body). Not a single word you uttered has any legitimacy. Could you please provide the real reason why you are voting no?
1