Thanks for the points, but I'm just seeing exactly the diversion I mentioned
north-north-west wrote:Demanding access against the wishes of the owners and traditional custodians is also disrespectful....
My point is those very wishes are, themselves, disrespectful.
Firstly, inherent in them is a restriction of liberties of fellow Australians. Other laws do the same, but they have justification grounded in the common good. So whats the reason here?
The traditional justification for not climbing Uluru is instead grounded entirely in the same primitive tribal law that also justified arranged marriages with child brides (often consummated with rape), and punished homosexual behavior by spearing offenders in the legs.
Nobody talks about 'respecting' those wishes now, because they impinge on liberties we value and they have no logical justification in their own right. Yet people support restricting freedom of movement on ground leased to the public and managed by tax dollars, citing the importance of respecting the same creed?
So which superstitious cultural 'wishes' deserve enshrinement in law, and which don't? Do Adam and Eve now have a place in biology classes? Do we comply with the wishes of the church on same-sex marriage, out of 'respect for their wishes?
Once again, 'respect' seems to be a very selective and flexible notion - mainly because it's hard to make a case for it when the demand itself is pretty unjustifiable.
north-north-west wrote:That is the idea behind affirmative action. It is not about privileging one group above another, but making up for (correcting) prior discrimination against them.
This ALSO has quite a few problems. Firstly, if we are really interested in correcting the imbalance, denying other Australians something for a symbolic point does absolutely nothing to address the actual deficiencies (health, education, employment) affecting indigenous communities. Which means this sort of affirmative action is NOT corrective, its
compensatory. Biiig difference
Propping up practices that that don't stand up on their own merits, in the name of COMPENSATION for perceived imbalances elsewhere, is a really dangerous precedent. It endorses the principle that proposals are not to be judged by merit, and rights are not universal, but based on a per-determined notion of class-based entitlement. Social policy stops being about whats justified and fair, and becomes a bitter competition about who did what to whom. Those originally responsible are long gone, so those subjected to systemic inequality in the name of 'corrective equality' inevitably feel duped, on both sides.
History has proven time and time again, this ONLY creates further social conflict and broadens the social divide.
north-north-west wrote:There is a daily ration of four biscuits for two people. One of those people has always taken three of the biscuits while the other gets one. This is privilege. In order to balance it, the person taking three has to take fewer so the other can get an equal share. It's not a difficult concept. Nor is it unfair on the person who used to take the most.
In short, your biscuit analogy is broken (forgive the pun). The biscuit thief is long gone, that was last saturday's tea party.Nobody at the table now wants any more than anyone else now. But demanding that you get decide who gets the orange creams won't make you any less hungry last week, and you can bet someone's going to feel jibbed and demand an extra bikkie next week to make up for it.
TL;DR? jdeks wrote: the responses from advocates generally aim to shift or shut down the debate, usually with some derivative of 'You dont understand, you're privileged... two wrongs make a right.