I don't play games with the JWs. I challenge them on the evidence for their views. They don't come back.

What is the derivation of 'popo'? Police Officer P________? O______? Or what?

JW = Jehovah's Witness.

"goweth"??

Well, I'm reasonably familiar with older English, but not Norwegio-Elizabethian, so that must explain it!

True. But then that would be a lie, and I want them to see the fallacy of their views, so no, I wouldn't do that. And no way would I thank Satan for anything.

You weren't? And here's me thinking that that you actually do this! 😋

No. Skywalker was Vader's offspring. Churchill arose in response to Hitler. That is, the bad came first, and needed good to defeat it. Satan came second, attacking the good. Your analogies are invalid.

In a sense yes, but that doesn't change my point that the bad followed the good, not the other way around.

What are the two "bad"s you are referring to??

When I was a kid... we didn't have computers.

Around the same time I got my first computer (an Exidy Sorcerer, with 32KB of RAM). But I was an adult by then.

SCOMO is the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.

What makes him that, Swaye?

Are you going to randomly go through the dictionary, Doc?

I'm Australian too, Swaye, and I don't use that language.

Me to. But that's not Strine; that's obscenity.

No, but neither do you.

So that language is a Swaye thing, not an Aussie thing.

I'm at home, so I'm not wearing it. Relevance?

Changing the subject to what this topic is supposed to be about, the American election has made me (and not just me) appreciate the Australian electoral system so much more. I think I can say that nobody has any real concerns about the integrity of the voting system here.

Given that Australia as a country is not that old, you'll need to explain that more.

"Here" was a reference to Australia. And *here* it's the first day of 2021. So I assume you are not saying that you have concerns about the Australian system.

No. It's just that us Aussies are ahead of you Americans. (By about 20 hours.)

Whereas the founders of this country had great convictions. For petty theft, etc.! (It started as a penal colony.)

And wiser!

But are they paranoid assertions? How many previous elections had the left refusing to accept that Trump was legitimately the president? And how many had the outright censorship of the social media? And how many had the mainstream media doing the left's bidding?

Outer suburb of Melbourne.

Close politically? China is upset with Australia because it won't do its bidding.

Yes, he got more electoral college votes, but after an enormous amount of election interference and manipulation.

Oh, sorry. Yes, we should have placed the continent elsewhere. But then the U.S. is just across the water, whereas we have a few other countries between us and China!

Something else that wouldn't happen in Oz (although you could argue that this is the wrong way to go), as we have compulsory voting. So the number of votes will always be close to the number of registered voters.

Ah yes, but then the world would be even more top heavy, and that would be quite destabilising!

😆 yes!

Well, we also have preferential voting, which kind of prevents that.

Fox is not right-wing. That's a leftist mischaracterisation. A survey of the media done after Trump's first 100 days shows that the rest of the mainstream media was anti-Trump, whereas Fox was 50/50.

The "censorship" on social media was not scare-quotes censorship, but actual, effective, censorship.

He may be the most powerful, but his power is limited to certain areas. So no, that does not make the case.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

Right of centre is as right as it gets? And is that a good source? Most fact-checking sites are themselves biased.

And yet that *censorship* was effective enough that many people weren't even aware of the scandal around Hunter Biden.

I gave evidence if it not being right-wing, and you simply wave it away. And that was then. They have moved a bit to the left since.

I was referring to the link below that.

I don't understand that point. Looking at coverage of Trump is an action, not a methodology.

Your mirth does not mean that it's right-wing.

Sorry, still doesn't make sense. What's not proper methodology?

I don't think either label applies. People often don't fit neat categories. I'd say he's conservative in some respects, and moderate in others.

"Objectivity does not exist."
So that claim is itself not objectively true!

I don't have any figures on that, so I can't dispute nor agree.

I don't know who that was directed to, but by looking at evidence. And if you're referring to the Harvard link I posted, that didn't say that it was centre-left.

I haven't watched Fox that much, and my watching of it would not be random samples. I was going on evidence I have seen. I've also heard the left claim here in Oz that the News Ltd-owned Sky New is right wing, and yet it employs both progressives and conservatives, unlike the rest of the media that tends to only employ progressives.

Okay, so what's the distinction between "objectively true" and "factually true"?
As for the scientific method, that is a *method*, not a dogma.

A number of former lefties have testified that they lived in a leftist bubble where they were actually unaware of another viewpoint, or at least the rationale for it.

And yet I showed you a study that showed that it wasn't.

Because you say so?

You never really explained (apart from some vague assertions) how it was supposedly flawed. And you said that it showed Fox to be centre left, which it didn't.

If you're making a distinction between science and scientism, I think I agree.
"Scientific method is a practice by professional scientists and a religious right by religious scientists."
"Right" or "rite"? And why can't a professional scientist also be a religious scientist, depending on what you mean by that?

Not really, only vaguely. I'm still not sure what you're claiming, but the point is that it treated Trump even-handedly, unlike the other media it looked at. That doesn't suggest that Fox is of the right, unless you're saying that being on the right makes you fair (which is an argument I would be sympathetic to).

No, not causation, but evidence. As opposed to subjective opinions.

Yes, the scientific method is hard, unbiased, logic. In principle. Not always in practice.

I did not say that about the Harvard study.

With great difficulty. And by showing them their own self-contradictions, such as pointing out that if they say that truth doesn't exist, that claim cannot be true.

The "only vaguely" bit was referring to your "explanation" of why the methodology was flawed, I didn't say that the study only vaguely correlates.

True. I was talking about people who don't believe truth exists, not those who don't believe in logic. With those, I would point out that they themselves use logic.

It seems like you're not disputing the methodology, but my application of the study to the discussion here. I said " but the point is that it treated Trump even-handedly, unlike the other media it looked at. That doesn't suggest that Fox is of the right, unless you're saying that being on the right makes you fair (which is an argument I would be sympathetic to)."

I think that's too black-and-white, but yes, I tend to agree with that.

I do not have the onus of proof just because I'm in a minority. Those making a claim have the onus of proof, and the original claim was that it was right-wing. And I certainly don't have the onus of proof just because *it's claimed* that most agree; it seems that most on the left agree, but many others don't.

THAT is a misapplication of a study. That conservatives tend to watch a scarce neutral source more doesn't mean that the source is not neutral. It could just as easily be argued that conservatives prefer to hear both sides, unlike leftists.

I did say "it could ... be argued that...". And of course that was a generalisation, not a defining characteristic, so no, your conclusion does not follow. Further, it's not in evidence that Trump is unwilling to hear both sides.

I wasn't saying that you didn't try to back up your claim.
And without checking your wording, I think you said "right", whereas your study was "centre right". Further, I questioned the objectivity of fact checkers. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-scS7FCrs4

If you actually did sign such an affidavit, *that* would be evidence (but not proof). So far I've seen no evidence.

When Fauci told him about the impending pandemic, he didn't like it, but accepted the advice and acted. And didn't fire Fauci.

I'm not sure how that follows. Are you suggesting that it describing HuffPost as centre left when it's really left means that describing Fox as centre-right means that it's really right? But rather than list sources are closer to the centre than they really are, perhaps they are showing them further to the right than they really are?

I didn't propose a test.

We were talking about Trump only listening to sources he agreed with.

No, I was simply pointing out that your supportive evidence said something a bit different to what you claimed.

RINO, or CINO?

The problem is that I gave an example disagreeing with that claim.

I said "a bit different", not "completely different". And I've already addressed the HuffPost claim.

But is marriage purely a "religious" matter?

So you're claiming that Trump used to be open to opposing views, but no longer is?

Marriage is a way that we were designed to operate. Just like sex.

And yet in your previous reply you made a distinction between then and now, in order to dismiiss my evidence that he IS open to opposing views.

Are you making a distinction between marriage and marriage licences? My point is that it is legitimate to regulate marriage (whether that involves a licence or not), because marriage is a fundamental part of being, just as it's legitimate to regulate other matters, such as business, social interaction (e.g. not allowing theft, murder, etc.).

But I didn't just claim that he didn't fire Fauci. I pointed out that he listened and acted.

Are you claiming that he wanted to hear that there was a pandemic starting? What's your evidence?

So the state should not ban rape?

Part of what we know is that he has listed to things he didn't want to hear. And we also know that there is good reason to think that he was cheated out of the election, so it is not in evidence that he simply doesn't want to hear that.

Marriage is a fundamental part of society, which would break down without it. You're treating it as an optional extra.

Rape is an interpersonal relationship, which you said should not be regulated.

The secular purpose to marriage is to benefit society.
That rape is a form of assault does not mean that it's not *also* an interpersonal relationship, which you said should not be regulated. It seems that you think *some* interpersonal relationships should be regulated, but not others.

Marriage existed well before taxes.

No, but it's not just the American government that does. Most if not all governments do, because it's such a fundamental part of society.

If two people are interacting, I'd call that an interpersonal relationship. What's your definition?

People who are attempting to establish if one particular one is somehow at odds with reality.

What is "level 3 communication"? And would your definition thereby exclude frequent rape of the same person?

I'm not disputing that it's wrong.

NIfty phrases can be fun, but wrong. As in this case.

You're rationalising. The point is that governments have a duty to keep people safe (and therefore rape is illegal), and that can apply to marriage also. For example, it is wrong to marry someone underage; that is one regulation around marriage, without which people would be put in danger.

Anyway, I have productive work to do, so I'll have to leave it there.

"Intercourse with someone that is not mature enough physically and emotionally to process the experience as an adult, that is without harm, is wrong."
So my point stands. You seem to be splitting hairs between intercourse and marriage. Marriage includes intercourse. A marriage with someone too young is therefore wrong, and it is proper for governments to regulate that.