There's only so many trees, we can beat them!
spiffmeister
joined 2 years ago
Well as people worried about victims I'd just be worried it might seem a tad disingenuous quote from a vast minority of cases and not provide any quotes from victims that never see justice you know?
What happens to people who have been raped and weren't believed or were falsely accused of faking it? Just wondering if they have similar experiences with mental health?
The rate of false accusations of rape is really hard to determine but is generally regarded as being pretty low (Vicpol puts it at ~5% based on studies). It's also extremely hard to get a good number though, since false does not mean unfounded.
I don't think it's justified drawing an equivalence between rape and rape accusations given the evidence we have on the rates, it makes it seem like false accusations are happening way more than they actually are.
Also given who this probably is, this is likely not the only accusation of rape also, which decreases the likelihood the accusations are false I would suggest.
The no campaign is run by pretty seasoned wreckers.
Just now you haven't answered the queries he had repeatedly made, you've shot them down.
The same line used by climate change deniers for ages, while they disingenuously repeated the same arguments that had been debunked or were nonsense.
liberal party
Probably thinks misogyny is okay tbh
$387 billion cost
You could get a whole new fleet of nuclear subs for that!
Maybe they're fighting climate change one downvote at a time
The government could do many things, but it's not the question being asked by the constitutional amendment. It's not hard to find the design principles for the voice, something I suspect people wouldn't read even if this wasn't going to referendum.
Wanting to see something for two years first is kind of an excuse to never do anything. It's also not really a good argument for voting no, because the idea is that the "shape" of the voice can be changed if it isn't working. What people are voting on is the concept.
I dunno what else to tell you, that's the proposal and that's where we are. If people are voting no because lack of details there's not much to do to convince them. The government is hardly going to release more details now.
The point of there not being an extremely precise definition of the voice in the constitution is that it can be changed if it's not working. Most parts of the constitution are like this afaik.
What you are being asked is if you support putting a passage in the constitution that would ensure a body with the express purpose of indigenous representation exists.
To publish open access normally costs upwards of $3k USD as well. There's practically no point in the publishing chain where academics aren't getting screwed.
Let's also not forget that you have to review other people's papers for the journal for free.