I am concerned when people express passionate views on a matter.
We all run on instinct, and we need it to survive.
And, let's face it, some of our instinctive reactions can be passionate.
However, we normally use reason to control and direct our actions.
Running on instinct alone won't cut it any more.
So views need to be thoughtful, measured, steady, rather than passionately expressed.
Passionately expressed views mean you are running on instinct rather than reason.
It needs reason to lead us to a better understanding of something, and passionate people might not get there.
They can't or don't exercise reason to modify their views. They are not being logical.
I don't take too much notice of passionate views, as mostly they are not well thought out.
They are thus likely to be faulty.

shadowminister,

Repeatedly shooting you down is becoming a little tiring.

If a person's mitochondrial DNA returns positive genetics for Jewish heritage then there is no need for proof of conversion or otherwise. It is a test where a tiny amount of DNA is taken as confirmation of belonging to a particular ethnic group.

Why isn't a proven linage enough for a person to see themselves as having Aboriginal heritage?

You either reject or accept them both. To only validate one is to be rightfully regarded as racist.

SR,

Beating you like a drum is too easy.

First, you are happy to accept religious teachings based on the Torah from 1000s of years ago as a sound legal base for determining ethnicity. That it is scientifically dubious doesn't seem to bother you either.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child, meaning that a person with a 100% aboriginal father and a mother with 99% aboriginal but a non-aboriginal mother somewhere in the female line would test negative for Mitochondrial aboriginal DNA. Whereas someone that is 99% British but has an aboriginal female somewhere in the maternal line could test positive.

Secondly, as you haven't tried to address the issue of conversion to aboriginality, I guess that you are ignoring it because it blows a hole in your infantile logic.

shadowminister,

Why are you attempting to use the mitochondrial DNA in an Aboriginal frame? Don't be idiotic.

The question is about the amount of DNA which you deem qualifies someone as Jewish or someone else as Aboriginal. It is quite evident that a very small amount still gets you a ticket to take up Israeli citizenship. Yet you want to set limits on what qualifies someone as an aboriginal.

You are making a racist distinction.

SR,

I've never claimed that the tiny fraction of Jewish DNA makes you Jewish. You are the one claiming that because of a religious loophole in Jewish belief that it must be right. I disagree and think it's an aberration and you are the one arguing that mysticism is a sound legal base.

People that are 1% Aboriginal are claiming Aboriginal heritage along with all the taxpayer-funded grants etc. I think that's bollocks.

What will Australia gain economically from becoming a Republic?
And what will cost of the change be?