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.