this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
867 points (96.2% liked)

World News

39184 readers
1594 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.

Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you haven’t seen it then it clearly doesn’t exist lol. Argument from anecdotal evidence is a huge logical fallacy.

You talk about rhetorical fallacies like you understand how to use them and it’s hilarious. You’re right though I should be more concerned with morons like you that eat up fallacious thinking.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sharing my personal experience that I haven't personally been lied to is not a logical fallacy. Also, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the one negating it. You and other 'Yes' supporters can't go two minutes without claiming that, "THEY'RE SPREADING LIES!!!!", yet can never seem to back it up. You'd much rather wave your dick in the air calling everyone but your reflection a moron.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s been backed up by a recent comment. It speaks volumes though that instead of reading the language of the bill to clarify you just throw out fallacies to defend your interpretation.

You’re claiming that an advisory body existing is racist and clearly don’t understand that this advisory body has no legislative power. It literally exists to just give opinions to actual lawmakers. That’s just one misrepresentation that people like you eat up uncritically.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, it was backed up by 'a recent comment'? Thank goodness that's cleared up. /s

Also, note that my original comment that you replied to explicitly used the wording from the proposed amendment that it was an advisory body that would make representations to parliament. Using the actual wording is hardly a misrepresentation. If my wording upset you, then maybe you should have voted 'No'.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You used the actual wording yes but your understanding of the bill is still vapid.

It’s not race based and has no legal power to enforce anything. I’m not upset by the original wording. I’m bothered by your stubborn refusal to look at this beyond your previously conceived value judgements.

And yes, another comment sourced you information you shoved off your high chair like a toddler because they didn’t chew it up for you so you could swallow the mash without thinking too hard about chewing. Congrats on the snark, it’s the only thing you’re good at.