Sentences with phrase «arguments on your assertions»

You didn't actually use «Football» as an example as somehow validating your arguments on your assertions of Jesus... did you...?

Not exact matches

Be it with nonsensical assertions or statements (which either have zero basis in fact or reality, or are just a one - dimensional, self - promotional view on things), or random what - about ism arguments (one response to the launch of a social enterprise incubator in Dubai was essentially, «What about Yemen?»)

Quick context: On April 12, Alsup ordered Levandowski to provide logs justifying his assertion of the Fifth Amendment, saying that it should not be a long document and that he provide Waymo «enough of the argument so that they can respond.»

DO NOT insist on religious leaders making their case by reasoned argument, but by bald assertion or authoritarian claims which are much easier to invent and promote.

that is, «The world is thus [italics mine] faced by the paradox that, at least in its highest actualities, it craves for novelty and yet is haunted by terror at the loss of the past, with its familiarities and its loved ones,» refers, because of the use of the word thus, to a previous argument that provides the grounds on which Whitehead bases his assertion that the world requires both novelty and order.

First he attempted to apply a logical argument, whose history extends back at least as far as Cicero's On Divination.4 According to this view, contingency (chance) and foreknowledge (fate) are contradictory assertions because a contingent event, being unnecessitated, can not be known until it occurs.

In his encyclical Paul VI moved the Catholic Church away from the traditional natural law arguments (contrary to Harold O. J. Brown's assertion) that were based on an «objective» teleology, i.e., one that emphasizes the causal link between sex and procreation (as suggested by J. Budziszewski) or the natural law arguments by design (as asserted by Eric Chevlen).

You say «In philosophical arguments the onus of proof rests on he who makes an assertion.»

He can not distinguish questions regarding the existence of the universe from questions regarding its physical origin; he does not grasp how assertions regarding the absolute must logically differ from assertions regarding contingent beings; he does not know the differences between truths of reason and empirical facts; he has no concept of ontology, in contradistinction to, say, physics or evolutionary biology; he does not understand how assertions regarding transcendental perfections differ from assertions regarding maximum magnitude; he clumsily imagines that the idea of God is susceptible to the same argument from infinite regress traditionally advanced against materialism; he does not understand what the metaphysical concept of simplicity entails; and on and on.

DO insist on religious leaders making their case by reasoned argument not by bald assertion or authoritarian claims.

His proposals regarding religion amount to assertions concocted on the basis of evolutionary hunches rather than conclusions proceeding from carefully constructed arguments.

Franck surveys the many ways in which proponents of gay marriage and other progressive social causes ignore the arguments made by conservatives, falling back on the assertion that resistance is based on «hate.»

Moreover, Leclerc's own argument that certain intimate actions binding minimal substances together are themselves substantial principles, is very weak, and seems to rest on the assertion that such relations must be substantial because 1) there are composite material substances, and 2) such composites are composed of other, smaller substances.

Another argument against the banning of junk food advertising to children claims that assertions about causal influences of food advertising on children's diets and weight are flawed because they do not take into consideration other risk factors.

The assertion about the huge financial involvement in my views is in order but may not be completely correct, as the argument was not only sophistry but antithetical to building a nation devoid of corruption and goes against the global warning on corruption as succulently pointed out.

Donald Trump also has shown an authoritarian tendency to base policy arguments on questionable assertions of fact and a cult of personality.

In the argument for smoking bans in parks and on beaches, the most striking aspect, according to Dr. Bayer, is the assertion that just the act of smoking in public poses a threat to the well - being of children and adolescents because of the message it conveys.

What kind of arguments and data support the assertion that ocean circulation can't be responsible for warming on a timescale of decades, and that some sustained forcing (e.g. solar or GHGs) must be causing a long - lived energy imbalance?

I had an argument once, about Gary Taubes with a commenter on my Underground Nutritionist Facebook page, because he didn't agree with my assertion that Gary blames Insulin above everything else for the Obesity problem.

One should further note that Tom Loveless, a former Harvard policy professor and now senior fellow at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, has produced direct criticism of the core elements in Green's argument (as condensed in her New York Times Magazine piece), namely her assertion that Japan's success in math performance is due to its embracing the pedagogical approaches she champions, while America's relatively poor results stem from our clinging to the outmoded models she dislikes.

Referring to the FMCSA enforcement decisions as reported on the Department's Docket Management System, he noted that «the tenor of the pleadings on both sides often appears to be bitter, going well beyond the mere assertion of different, conflicting arguments about what the law requires and what penalty, if any, should be imposed.»

They include one of the most volatile, protracted arguments you'll see on the matter, incidentally making me think there's something to Disqus CEO Daniel Ha's assertion in Four ways web comments will change that «readers are spending most of their time on the south side of web pages.

I can't help but think Dan H. is rehearsing arguments that will impress more on sites where the audience is less capable of checking his assertions (they can hardly be called arguments when they fail to hold up at all).

Still, you would be surprised at some of the arguments that can be found for even the most basic assertions such as Co2 being a heat trapping gas — we see these arguments on the TalkClimateChange forum all the time.

Svec totally avoided answering Hansen's assertions: that big coal has been trying to muddy the debate on climate change with spurious, specious arguments to delay action.

Their predictions are based on liberal assumptions / assertions and circular arguments (e.g. hypothesis / models).

This morning, Korman repeatedly slammed his hand down on the table for emphasis, interrupting the government counsel's every other sentence with assertions like, «You're just playing games here,» «You're making an intellectually dishonest argument,» «You're basically lying,» «This whole thing is a charade,» «I'm entitled to say this is a lot of nonsense, am I not?»

In 1981, my Harvard colleague, political scientist Steven Kelman surveyed Congressional staff members, and found that support and opposition to market - based environmental policy instruments was based largely on ideological grounds: Republicans, who supported the concept of economic - incentive approaches, offered as a reason the assertion that «the free market works,» or «less government intervention» is desirable, without any real awareness or understanding of the economic arguments for market - based programs.

His opposition stemmed partly from the valid argument that they impose real hardship on Iranians, but also from the very dubious claim that they make war more likely, and from the legally ridiculous assertion that western use of financial tools to block oil sales «is a financial blockade, and blockades are acts of war.»

The second most frequent argument made by opponents of climate change policies are assertions that governments should not take action on climate change because adverse impacts have not been sufficiently scientifically proven.

We could just as easily make an argument by assertion that your view of the evidence is based on fear and «belief.»

Robert has invited to you play on a field which he has circumscribed, layering on the arguments that you can't prove your assertions using formulas he chooses.

I hear all manner of negative arguments on both sides of the issue, but never any positive assertions.

No answer there, until VTG's partial answer (I'm now not sure it was an answer because of the reference to the paper Judith co-authored, and as has been pointed out, that paper may just be an argument based on certain assumptions that would make my question inapplicable, although the question as to whether Judith's assertion about CO2 / ACO2 «dominance» is in contradiction to Lewis» range of sensitivity may still be a valid question, I think).

Or more accurately, fallacy bingo... Just on this page alone I've spied elements of the psychologist's fallacy, the Nirvana fallacy, argumentum ad misericordiam, some hasty generalization / inductive fallacy, onus probandi, and argument by assertion.

-- CREDO calls State Dept's EIS on Keystone XL «coward's logic» in statement: «The State Department's environmental assessment is a vehicle for the White House to test the waters to see if the public will buy its false and cynical argument that the Canadian Tar Sands are going to get burned anyway, and so the government's chief climate scientist's assertion that Keystone XL will spell «game over» for the climate may be true but is essentially irrelevant,» said Becky Bond, political director at CREDO.

What kind of arguments and data support the assertion that ocean circulation can't be responsible for warming on a timescale of decades, and that some sustained forcing (e.g. solar or GHGs) must be causing a long - lived energy imbalance?

While I have done a fair amount of research on the arguments, I must admit I could be wrong as well, in any assertions I have made.

Then thereâ $ ™ s the pesky issue of â $ œconsensus.â $ Alarmists typically counter any fact - based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore â $ œthe science is settledâ $ and â $ œthe debate is over.â $ â $ œMild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, â $ IPCC claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment.

The coal companies and states challenging the plan have crafted a legal argument that essentially focuses on one core assertion: that the rule is «unprecedented.»

The point of this remark is that no one up to present date has conducted any analysis of this sort on the ice core data, therefore my assertion that currently «you have no data of adequate quality from past proxies, so the argument of «unprecedented» growth can not be used» is perfectly valid and is true.

Trouble is, Monckton makes a jumble of politics, ideology and goodness knows what else, all of which is irrelevant to the science; only the advances on the scientific front are relevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, and on that issue Monckton makes wild assertions rather than reasoned argument.

It's pretty much all there, the trappings of a moral panic argument: emphasis on the vulnerable among us (whether young or ignorant or simply «innocent»), the allegation of insidious corruption working in ways that are out of the sight of the ordinary person, the confident assertions of the experts, the reification of the danger in print («I hold in my hand a book...», «I have here in my hand a list of 205 — a list of names... «-RRB- and the use of very large (and rising) numbers that need only be tangentially related to the actual scourge...

The Commonwealth conceded at oral argument that the judge did not rely on, nor refer to, the Commonwealth's assertion that the defendant's several motions for appointment of new counsel were intended to manipulate or obstruct the orderly procedure of the court.

At 66 follows an extensive list of arguments leading to a conclusion of submission, with particular emphasis on Notices of Appeal, each of which included a merit - based objection to the judgment appealed from but contained no assertion that the US courts lacked jurisdiction by reason of, or that the claims were barred by, sovereign immunity.

The purpose of such arguments is to defeat the assertion of a communal native title on behalf of a regional grouping.