Most people these days don't know that the final solution described the attempt to wipe out Jews. Most people don't learn a damn thing after they leave school and, increasingly, they don't learn much AT school other than what their communist teachers brainwash them with. Anything they do pick up - mainly by accident - is from mainstream media specialising in fake news. The media no longer reports, it lectures. The ignorant garbage they talk about Donald Trump is evidence of this; the media is disgustingly anti- Trump, and they have brainwashed the ignoramuses into believing what they believe - particularly our appalling politicians. Pauline Hanson would not be the only political dropkick who didn't understand what the final solution was. The absolute rubbish spouted by Leftist politicians, including Malcolm Turnbull, after Anning’s speech was proof of that.

If any group needs cleaning out and replacing, it is Australia's political class

'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”—George Orwell

unfortunately the schools and unis have dumbed down people so much that they believe the likes of the abc/Guardian as if their reporting was factual. Socialism requires demonising, shutting down debate and using pseudo science and never asking the obvious question. A good example was 730 report last night that repeatedly pointed out high murder rate in Detroit among young blacks. Of course no one would ever consider that the murderers are almost exclusively blacks. That would be racist to point this out.

The senator's utterances were loaded with a term every boy and his dog knew, applied to the extermination/genocide of over 6 million Jews!

EVERY BOY AND HIS DOG!

And correctly denounced by Senator Hasen as straight out of Gobell's handbook?

Who apparently is credited with the view if you tell a big enough lie? People will believe it' true? Given most decent folk believe nobody could tell such outrageous lies and therefore had to be true?

Moreover, it's said, if a lie is repeated often enough, even the perpetrators of this propaganda, ill begin to believe their own lies! Be it a flat earth or that GW is just a scam to extract revenue?

Senator who in parliament, with just 19 votes? Needed something to get some public profile and did just that by appealing to the very worst among us.

And the "Final Solution" did exactly that!

Spin it any which way or try and justify that tactic by implying some alleged connection to fake news won't change that!

It may, however, give some comfort to the xenophobes and extreme right-wing, white supremacists and Nazis among us who have always agreed with Senator who?

Completely unacceptable empathy-free, inhumane sentiments!

And needed to be called out by every decent civilised human being. Rather than be excused by this or that diabolically disingenuous diatribe or calculated clever spin?
Alan B.

Fake news is a new term describing news with an ideological slant. Often the term is justified. But it's a dangerous practice. Journalists should stop exaggerating their views through sloppy reporting.

Journalism is under huge pressure. The pressure is from the changing face of news delivery, causing a temptation to exaggerate for attention. There are less jobs in the industry as print media falls in a heap, and news reporting heads for the hills of the internet. Direct advertising through news sources has transferred to digital platforms outside the industry, reducing traditional revenue streams.

Digital platforms are causing the most anxiety to journalism; and to governments introducing more strict security legislation and tighter controls on news outlets, through court suppression orders, and outright attacks on the journalists freedom to report the news.
Constantly chiming the devil of fake news, (and of course, delivering fake news), is actually an attack on legitimate journalism. The danger of this current trend in news reporting, is to hamper access to freedom of information to us all, and is a real one.

I give everyone the right to make mistakes or even be mis-inturpreted.
In Annings case, there is no doubt he was describing anything but a 'final solution'.
It is the work of the left and those who needed a lift in their ratings and political standing, that came out giving all kinds of 'fake' responses to a nothing comment.
If those of you cannot reckognise a sick opportunist when you see one, like those idiots who came out bagging him, than please don't comment.
He is not as stupid as those who contend he actually, deliberately said the words, 'final solution', to bag the Jews.
Really?
You are so limited in intellect, and so prejudiced and bias towards the man, you actually believe him to be just as bad as yourself, or worse.
People, this stops here and now!
He used the words to describe the exact point he was trying to make.
Let me assure you, gassing Jews was nowhere near the point he was trying to make.
So for those of you who stupidly believe he is actually anti Semitic, and even more stupidly believe he would even hint it in his speech, let alone highlight it as a point in his speech, you are truly disturbed people.
He's OK, he's not another lying, deceitful clown like the rest of em'.

A well thought out and well written article by Spencer Gear.

For as long as I can remember, there has been little cultural diversity in the media. The fact that the Left had captured the power of the media to promote it's white hating, anti western agenda, is evidenced by the fact that most white people in the western world no longer trusted the media to tell the truth. This was exploited by Rupert Murdoch when he created Fox News, because he knew that there was a market for people who wanted news which gave an opposing view. Since then, right wing commentators have gone from strength to strength as entire western populations turn away from the mainstream media that seems to despise them.

The Fraser Anning speech was a case in point.

Fraser Anning made just the sort of speech that ordinary Australians have wanted to hear from their representatives for the last forty years. He rather stupidly used the term "final solution", a term he obviously did not know the significance of. If he knew the significance, he would never have used it, because it would give the enemies of the Australian people a heaven sent excuse to portray Anning's supporters as Nazis.

As usual, the Left played the champions of the poor downtrodden immigrants who are the victims of white racist Australian population, who are akin to Nazis. Just look at the way they got as much mileage from it as they could. Notice how they always respond in terms of high morale outrage? Moral grandstanding and acting out as the champions of all that is good and holy, is their default position.

It is pure comic opera. Elmer Gantry is now a Lefty.

The funny thing is, that the Left just can't figure out why most western white people have not accepted that their race is the most vile on Earth, or why they no longer take the mainstream media seriously. I had never heard the term "fake news" before Trump used it, and it has obviously struck a chord with white western populations.

ALTRAV,

My article agrees with the sentiments of the early part of your comment. The Nazi final solution was not in the mind of Senator Fraser Anning (according to him) but it was fillet steak for perpetrators of fake news.

I encourage you not to write logical fallacies when describing others, e.g.

+ 'those idiots who came out bagging him' (name calling doesn't help discussion)
+ 'You are so limited in intellect, and so prejudiced and bias towards the man' (name calling again)
+ 'those of you who stupidly believe' (appeal to stupidity);
+ 'even more stupidly believe' (appeal to stupidity);
+ 'you are truly disturbed people' (labelling a person's mental disability);
+ 'he's not another lying, deceitful clown like the rest of em' (name calling again).

We can't have a reasonable conversation when logical fallacies are used because of the erroneous reasoning. I urge you to address the issues I raised. You did that in the early part of your reply but then resorted to the use of fallacies.

OzSpen, my choice of words and phrases are so, because it has become apparent over the years, that merely using passive language and subtleties does not convey the message effectively.
Also I found it a useful tool to convey emotion and inflection in a comment.
It is not enough to merely say someone is 'wrong' if you want to say it forcefully.
What you describe is MY form of expression, to convey a more effective and directed case or to make my point 'loud and clear', if necessary, and not just a bland few words.
You will agree that writing something is completely lacking in inflections, compared to orating the same written script.
So my use of words you have highlighted is quite acceptable to me.
I am pleased to see I am justified and vindicated, by the fact you have given my methods acknowledgement.
Thank you, it will be of great value to me as anyone who may have thought the same as yourself, now knows why I write the way I do.
At least my way, there is no misunderstanding my messages, irrespective of any criticisms you may have.
The important thing is to say what you truly feel or wish to say, no matter the means.
We must reject PC and other mediums that try to stop freedom of speech, warts and all.

ALTRAV,

<<It is not enough to merely say someone is 'wrong' if you want to say it forcefully.
What you describe is MY form of expression, to convey a more effective and directed case or to make my point 'loud and clear', if necessary, and not just a bland few words.>>

What I highlighted was not your 'form of expression' but your fallacious reasoning.

We can say something forcefully by use of powerful adjectives and figures of speech.

For example, I could say: Fraser Anning was taken to the cleaners by the politically correct mob - MPs and media. Anning refused to back down because he knew what he said had absolutely zero to do with the Nazi Holocaust. The spin doctors manufactured abominable replies of insult and ridicule. When will the mass media give us facts instead of fiction?

I don't need to resort to logical fallacies.

Well OzSpen, according to you, I DO!
One can criticise or highlight any and all that they find worthy of condemnation or praise.
Fortunately it is the wonder of free speech that enables us to do so.
If I feel it necessary to convey a certain feeling, I do so without any consideration as to whether the reader is made to feel uncomfortable or not.
Usually, if the reader is offended, it is because they have some connection to the offending words or article.
Or they are merely of weak character.
I don't care to diminish the veracity and intent of my language, simply because of a few who are not in possession of a full gamut of emotions, intellect and maturity.
But thank you for your thoughts and comments.
It is always helpful to know a little about other commentors and their leans.

If the idiotic left is allowed to misrepresent, lie and demonise its a bit rich to complain about someone giving an opinion which is right in a strong manner. How else will the dumbed down left ever understand any basic commonsense.

btw in yesterdays paper their was a question in the crossword about a cleaning lady (the answer being Sadie). I dare say that should give the HRC 3 months work and the feminist something to whinge about and boycott the paper. Surprised the DRUM has not picked up on it. Ha Ha!

The final response to this stupid controversy is that it is obvious
that all those that were outraged by the use of two words often used
in all fields including mathematics are just simply dishonest.

They knew what was meant but they just wanted to pretend it meant
something from history, what a lot of daggy stupid twits that thought
the rest of us would not understand what they were up to.

If the Greens or Bill Shortlan said it, it would have gone unoticed.

You've hit the nail on the head, Bazz, by labelling the Fraser Anning saga a 'stupid response' by both politicians and mass media.

It did give Anning lots of publicity for Katter's Australian Party and the values of KAP.

It would have gotten up the nose of those on the left when he revealed he was a 'conservative Christian'. That's an ideal trigger for the godless folks to give Anning a kick.

In the article, I highlighted some of the foolish statements made by those who should know better - MPs, Senators and mass media journalists.

//It would have gotten up the nose of those on the left when he revealed he was a 'conservative Christian'. That's an ideal trigger for the godless folks to give Anning a kick.//

I suspect they were probably more bothered by his fawning admiration of the White Australia Policy. But since nobody is psychic I guess we'll never know.

typical of Toni to lose the argument and then demonise and misrepresent to cloud the issue. No doubt from the same sick ideology school as Ms Ford. Facts don't matter to the left.

//demonise and misrepresent to cloud the issue.//

Sorry, are you trying to tell me Senator Anning didn't utter the following words in his speech?

"A key part of this great pre-Whitlam consensus was bipartisan support from both Liberal and Labor for a European based immigration program. The great Labor statesmen Ben Chifley, John Curtin and Arthur Calwell all strongly supported an immigration program that actively discriminated in favour of Europeans. Australia's greatest conservative, Sir Robert Menzies himself, said: I don't want to see reproduced in Australia the kind of problem they have in South Africa or in America or increasingly in Great Britain. I think— a European based immigration program has— … been a very good policy and it's been of great value to us..."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech

Runner, if that's not admiration of the White Australia Policy then I'm a turnip.

To Tony Lavis.

Human beings are tribal and territorial. What holds all societies together is the shared beliefs and values of its citizens as to what constitutes right and wrong behaviour. The desire to live amongst ones own kind, people who share your values and with whom you feel safe, is a cultural universal. The ghettoisation of Australia into ethnic suburban enclaves is contemporary proof of that. Multiculturalism is exactly like socialism, how many times does it need to fail before "intelligent" people like yourself flash on the concept that it never works?

What do these "multicultural" states have in common?

Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Chechnya, Guadalcanal, Aden, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, Yemen, Mexico, East Timor, Thailand and recently, Ukraine.

Why do you want Australia to emulate their failed societies?

If Australia had kept the White Australia Policy, this country would now be a stronger, more prosperous and a safer country than it is now. We would not have "diversity bollards" littering city streets, teachers refusing to teach in "troubled" (read Muslim and African) schools, billions spent on security, armed guards on jewish schools, newspaper offices and government buildings, ever expanding prisons and welfare offices, African gangs in Melbourne out of control with the police advising residents to flee them on sight, Australian Defence Force members, SES volunteers, ambulance drivers, and Rural fire Service volunteers advised to not wear their uniforms off duty to minimise the risk of being beheaded, or the need for specialist medical teams in Canturbury, Bankstown and Fairfield hospitals to treat the consequences of female genital mutilation.

Fair Dinkum, Tony. People like you seem to have a thought process that thinks like this. Racism bad. Therefore anything associated with racism must not even be thought about or considered in any way. Turn off brain. Bask in the reflected glory of your shining moral virtue

A not infrequent plaint in Britain is why did we not take notice of Enoch Powell ?

Bazz,

Why don't you share with us some of the main points Enoch Powell made about immigration?

I'm familiar with his controversial speech in 1968 known as 'rivers of blood', https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html.

He was demoted from Conservative Party cabinet over this speech.

I cannot add any more to it. I remember the fuss that was made.
It was one of the first politically correct controversies.

Lego, well put.
An excellent piece of work, both in delivery and content.
You are showing great courage for telling the 'truth', and ignoring PC and all the rubbish these 'suck-holes' engage in for fear of becoming unpopular.
I and, truth be known, MILLIONS of Aussies would want to give you some kind of prize for 'telling it like it is'.
The truth is sometimes uncomfortable, but it is always, 'the truth'.
You have broken it down and explained it very well.
There is NO reason anyone on OLO will not 'get it', finally.
It would have to be one of the best postings I have seen in a while.
So, thank you, and keep it up.

//To Tony Lavis.//

To LEGO: you couldn't be bothered to spell my name correctly, so I stopped reading after 'Lavis.'

As such, I'm not sure what arguments you made or points you raised, so I tried to find a generic rebuttal to whatever Tory crap you're in favour of. I hope it is to your liking, even if doesn't fully address whatever it is you were on about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

LEGO,

Exalting the White Australia Policy and dumbing down on multiculturalism misses a critical factor that is present in all people.

Sin (breaking God’s laws) infects all of us, no matter what the colour. I’ve addressed some of this problem in my On Line Opinion article: 'Cricket ball-tampering disease in all of us', at: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19680

Sin is a good word to describe the depravity all of suffer from. We have no problem sending players to the Sin Bin in rugby league, basket ball,, etc when they violate rules of the games.

Many will reject this diagnosis, but we see it all over Australia in examples from the Sexual Abuse Royal Commission, the Banking Royal Commission, the crime and violence we see on the nightly news. I know we all have to battle with lying, stealing, deceit, evil thoughts, sexual immorality, etc (and that includes me, a 'white' person).

You do remember Hitler & the Nazi Holocaust, Mussolini’s killing brigade, the Soviet Gulag, etc. Resorting to a White Australia Policy focusses on one group that is infected with the same disease as the rest of humanity.

To OzSpen

I gather from your article that you are a Christian? OK, I don't have a problem with Christianity because it is part of western culture, and the moral code that Christianity imparted is the reason why western societies are much more peaceful and honest than cultures based upon other religions. But I reject the idea that all people are equal. Even God discriminates between those who worship him and those who do not.

Exactly what you are inferring in the rest of your reply is unclear. You seem to associate racism with sin, Hitler and genocide. Your inference seems to be, that even thinking that there might be some validity in racism is sinful and therefore unthinkable. You have set yourself an intellectual boundary that you refuse to think past, because you think it must lead to Nazism and genocide.

By thinking this way, you are thinking exactly like those Christians who refused to consider the validity of the Earth not being the centre of the universe, or whether the earth was round, or whether evolution was a fact. Because to even think about any of these concepts meant that you were denying the holy scriptures, and therefore committing heresy.

For all I know, you may even believe that the earth is the centre of the universe, that the earth is flat, and a committed "intelligent design" believer? But if you are smart enough to realise that those concepts are clearly wrong, and that believing the opposite does not mean that you are renouncing God, then for God's sake do the same with racism.

Just because you might start considering that racism has some validity, does not mean that you have resigned from the human race. There are two racist ideas present in the western world today. The first is, that white western people are cause of all the world's problems and they are vilest race on Earth. The other is, that the reason why some ethnicities are always successful and why some are always dysfunctional, may have a lot to do with genetics

Which idea is correct?

LEGO,

Please read my post again at: OzSpen, Saturday, 6 October 2018 6:31:33 AM

At no point did I suggest any of the red herrings you raised in your last post.

What I emphasised was your favouring the White Australia Policy when the whites are as contaminated like all others – whether black, white or brindle.

The prophet Jeremiah nailed it: ‘The human heart [inner part] is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?’ (Jer 17:9).

The next verse affirms that the Lord God ‘searches all hearts and examines secret motives’. The human race has had this sinful nature problem since the beginning of time (Genesis 3).

You claim: <<But I reject the idea that all people are equal>>

The Scriptures contradict you (and so do I). Scriptures support the equality of all human beings. When God made the first human beings, ‘God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us’’ (Genesis 1:26). Equality among all human beings is God’s design.

<<Even God discriminates between those who worship him and those who do not.>>

That might be how you see it, but when God says, ‘You shall have no other gods before me’ (Ex 20:3), he is demonstrating who He is in the context of the Israelites coming out of Egypt: Ex 15:11 states ‘Who is like you among the gods, O LORD—glorious in holiness, awesome in splendor, performing great wonders?’

This is not discrimination but stating facts:

+ In the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, the miracle of Yahweh allowed them to cross the water on dry land, while Pharaoh and his armies were drowned.

+ Israel saw God’s great power against the Egyptians and in their deliverance.

+ Therefore, the Israelites exalted the one true God. Who is like Jehovah among the gods? No other god compares.

We see evidence all around us of human depravity - from individuals, corporations, church organisations and governments.

I urge you to quit inventing things I didn’t write in my post.

' Even God discriminates between those who worship him and those who do not. '

actually Lego God discriminates between those who believe and receive HIs Son Jesus Christ and those who reject His loving sacrifice. One group receives eternal life while others live for eternity without light, love, peace (ie in torment). I think you know that but its good to remind you in case by God's mercy you come to your senses.

OK, OK, I give up on this topic.

Toni Lavis is such a petulant little snowflake that he will not respond to my post because I accidently spelled his name wrong. Back to your "safe space", Toni. Next time I spell "Toni" as Tony" I will give you a "trigger warning". Jesus, and you wonder why us real liberals think that you psuedo liberals are just ego driven fashionistas. Don't worry Tony (oops, I mean Toni), I won't bother with you again. I thought you might have had a brain. My mistake.

To Ozpen.

I debate using reason and logic. If you wish to use religious texts to justify your amazing worldview, then let's just call it a day. I will note your name and I will not address posts to you again.

To Runner.

I don't believe in Sons of Gods. Mothers of Gods. Cousins of God's. Or Brother in Laws of Gods. But I know that some very decent people have a compulsive psychological need to do so, and I respect that.

As for eternal life, even the stars die.

LEGO,

Your ridiculing Toni Lavis was totally unnecessary. Here you resorted to an Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning and yet you claim, “I debate using reason and logic”.

That’s false!

When you use “you psuedo liberals”, it is not part of a logical sentence!! Why? Logic is needed to form any sentence. You blew it with the misspelling of “psuedo”.

When I use biblical texts, I’m quoting from documents that are reliable and trustworthy, even on a purely historical basis. Take a read of this article from the secular, Huffington Post, “2,500 Year Old Jewish Tablets Discovered in Iraq” (2015): https://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/2500-year-old-jewish-tabl_b_6579996.html.

What does this non-Christian source conclude about this discovery? “This discovery is a remarkable confirmation of the historical reliability of the Biblical text”.

My “amazing worldview” is rooted in aletheia (truth) which not only means the opposite of falsehood but also that which conforms to reality.

In the future, you state you will avoid posts by Toni and me. Are you afraid to debate alternate views with reason, logic and truthfulness?

When addressing runner, you dumped your worldview on the readers, “Mothers of Gods, etc.” without explanation.

As for eternal life or eternal damnation, one minute after your last breath you’ll wish you had discussed this further with us, instead of resorting to your Ad Hominem (Abusive) logical fallacy of “compulsive psychological need” and “even stars die”.

Don’t you get it that human beings are not stars?

Wrong again, Ozpen, it was very necessary. I wrote a well reasoned post, which Toni Lavis refused to read because I spelt his name "Tony" instead of "Toni." If that isn't childish and precious, I don't know what is? How is Toni ever going to grow up if nobody points out that he is acting like a spoiled child? In any case, it is obvious that his ego is so fragile and he is so immature that I won't bother directing any posts at him in future. I prefer to debate with people with some degree of intelligence and maturity.

As for pseudo liberals, that is exactly what today's Left wing people really are. They think that they are the intelligent, far seeing progressives, but since when have liberals denounced Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, and evidenced based logic?

Today's leftist activist class are simply social Conservatives desperately trying to shut up criticism of their failed ideologies of Socialism and Multiculturalism. And what I am writing now goes right to the heart of the Fake News topic that was penned by Spencer Gear. The social regressive, pseudo liberals are losing the trust of the public, who no longer trust the pseudo liberal media to tell the truth.

Just look at the farcical, fake news furore over the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice in the USA. By any application of reasoned logic, it is obvious that the charges of sexual misconduct leveled at Trump's appointee by politically partisan activists is a frame up. When the pseudo liberals demanded the FBI investigate, it did so and found nothing. No witnesses, no corroboration, and odd memory lapses and strange behaviour by the accusers. Then the pseudo liberals claimed the FBI was biased.

If the pseudo liberal media want to write fake news propaganda, they have to be more clever. Their present efforts are so bad that they equate with the Korean War Chinese propaganda which presented "spontaneous confessions" from captured US pilots entitled "HOW MY CRUEL CAPITALIST MASTERS FORCED ME TO COMMIT INHUMAN GERM WARFARE ON PEACE LOVING SOCIALIST PEOPLE."

I had not bothered to read this thread, being not very interested in the posturing of the lefties it did not interest me much.

However now having bothered I have Anning at the top of my senate list. It would be reasonable to put him there, just to get up the nose of those disgusting people who have pushed & supported this garbage, but even more so as his maiden speech was full of the right stuff for Oz & our future.

I must thank the left for their stupidity in this fake news, as I would probably never have even heard of Anning, if not for their hullabaloo, as Katter & his lot have not been on my radar.

My advice to Labor/Greens, stop trying to fabricate garbage to appeal to your rusted on bunch, they will vote for you no matter how stupid you are. Stuff like this will most definitely alienate most reasonable people, losing you some votes every time you do it.

Hell it might even cause more, like me, to look at a previously ignored possibility as somewhere to park our vote for a term or two, to help the Libs to come to their senses.

Lego, Hasbeen, on the front foot again.
I too would never have given Anning a second thought.
Not any more.
As you both contend, if the lefties would just shut up and stop, and think, thereby not doing his promoting for him.
I vote for the Annings of the world because they do NOT speak in PC.
They say what needs to be said and is therefore understood by the mature, intelligent, aware of the population.
I don't care what social indiscretions guys like Leyonhjelm are supposed to have done.
I care about what he is doing by being in parliament.
He's another, I am happy to see in 'the house'.
I am just one of millions of men who are fed up with these 'females' bagging us, for NO GOOD REASON.
So I am upping my opposition on these maggots and increasing my rhetoric and objectifying of them, if only to start the process of reform and raising the men to their rightful place.
Back in control.
For too long we have been pushed off our rightful position, by accommodating these 'females', all along thinking we were being polite and chivalrous.
We 'trusted' these maggots to do the right thing because they kept saying they were our equal and could do anything men could.
Well we took the eye off the ball and wasted trust and their words were just a load of BS.
Well the females can rest assured, they will get no more favours or help.
The way they conduct themselves in so many quarters it is a true and correct description when someone 'slut shames' a female.
That is only one example that David used, and because it is true, no-one can argue or dispute it.
So watch out females, there is a revolution about to make itself heard and felt, and you are in it's sights.
You wanted equality, well this is what it looks and feels like.
A word, you can either retreat calmly and quietly at a pace of your choosing or it will be thrust upon you without notice and with indifference.

LEGO,

In my previous reply to you, I mentioned …

+ Your illogical use of an Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy;

+ Your failure to write a logical sentence when you misspelled ‘psuedo’;

+ When I quote from the Bible, I’m referring to reliable and trustworthy texts and I gave one example.

+ My Christian worldview rooted in aletheia (truth);

+ Are you afraid to debate Toni and OzSpen when you stated you would avoid posts by us?

+ You dumped your worldview on ‘runner’.

+ You committed an Ad Hominem (Abusive) logical fallacy in your comment about those who seek eternal life.

There was not one sentence in your reply that addressed the specifics of what I wrote.

You gave your rationalisation about Tony vs Toni and then called Toni he, him and his. How do you know Toni is a male?

Instead of addressing my issues with your post, you were off and running with your own agenda of …

• today’s left wing people;
• leftist activist class;
• new Supreme Court justice in the USA;
• pseudo liberal media.

When you avoid the topics I raised, creating your own content, you gave us another logical fallacy, the Red Herring.

Red Herring
(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis,... irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation)

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument (Source: Logically Fallacious at: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring).

You don’t seem to understand how your claim of using logic and reason is wrecked by your use of logical fallacies, which are erroneous reasoning.

I urge you to address the issues I raised and not be off and running with your own agenda, with which you are more comfortable. We can’t have a rational debate when you use irrational tactics – logical fallacies.

Ozspen

Lego somewhat reminds me of Andrew Bolt. They usually think very rationally and are quite intelligent. Their blockage to Christ is not intellectual but pride and morality. They are not so brainwashed as the lefties not to acknowledge a moral conscience, their own flaws and to uncover idiotic pseudo science scams such as gw. I have met a number of people like these guys who are fine citizens but unwilling to yield to the ultimate truth (Jesus Christ). They need to hold on to the idiotic unscientific theory of evolution because its the best (as atrocious as the theory is) they can come up with. Strangely enough Lego responded to my post by writing

'But I know that some very decent people have a compulsive psychological need to do so, and I respect that. '

well if psychology is the study of the soul you would think any rational person conclude that man has a corrupt nature. In the unis that is the opposite that is taught. Look at the unhinged nasty corrupt feminist who accused Kavanaugh. What a beacon of human nature.

runner,

I can understand how you put him in Andrew Bolt's category in dealing with the Lefties and Greenies.

However, my perspective is this:

One of his major problems is violating the law of non-contradiction, which can be described in these ways:

Bill Pratt has explained the law of non-contradiction:

What is the law of non-contradiction?

1. A thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense.

2. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

3. A statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense

LEGO was assuring us that he used ‘reason and logic’ and then committed illogical actions in his use of logical fallacies, which is erroneous reasoning. Thus, his view was: I believe in logic and not-logic (logical fallacies)at the same time and relating to the same issue.

To maintain rational existence, we must live by the law of non-contradiction

'LEGO was assuring us that he used ‘reason and logic’ and then committed illogical actions in his use of logical fallacies, which is erroneous reasoning. Thus, his view was: I believe in logic and not-logic (logical fallacies)at the same time and relating to the same issue.'

Hi Ozspen

anyone that denies God but insists on absolutes already fail when it comes to reasoning as they do with creation requiring a Creator, design requiring a Designer, morals requiring a Lawgiver. Lego and many others are smart enough to know that. Many of the lefties have been to brainwashed to even think past their idiotic dogmas which include the big bang, evolution, man made gw etc.