That is entirely irrelevant. "The king exists, therefore the constitution should give different rights to regular people based on their race". Disgusting argument.

[–] ravenford@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im pointing out the hypocrisy, not providing an endorsement of monarchy. The Australian constitution has an original sin baked in, so pretending it's a sacred document and not already a biased setup is naive.

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody is proving an endorsement of monarchy. You're using monarchy as an argument for adding (additional) racism to the constitution. It's a fucking stupid argument. "One thing is bad, therefore it is not a problem to make other things worse too."

If something has a flaw (monarchy) that's not a reason to make it worse (enshrine racially based representation).

[–] ravenford@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this.

Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.

Your words. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy nothing further. The constitution is already in the state you say is fundamentally objectionable, it is not a neutral, equal set of laws. But you draw the line here, when advantage is already enshrined one way. Funny that.

You're pretty rude and divisive in your comments here, you can take negativity too far you know.