Sentences with phrase «bad argument of»

This theory of virtual representation is ever the last bad argument of prejudice.

Not exact matches

«I don't think there's going to be bad players per se, but there could be arguments over areas of operation overlap,» he said.

The sources of Trump's political support have been much debated, but his argument that trade deals were a «very bad deal» for Americans was compelling to a swath of voters across the political spectrum.

While I'm not persuaded by the argument that Canada needs countercyclical Keynesian deficit spending (I think we're already out of recession), I do know what fiscal policy I would consider worse: arbitrarily cutting spending in a weak economy to balance the budget in light of a revenue shortfall stemming from lower than expected nominal GDP.

The problem with this argument is that what is good for oil producers and exporters is inversely bad for major oil consumers and importers like the United States, Europe, and China in this zero sum game of global energy markets.

Though their bit wasn't directed at me personally, my eyebrows did pop up at their remark that the profit margin argument «annoys us to no end, for it smacks of either lazy thinking and lack of work, or worse, downright intellectual dishonesty.»

It's a bloated, constipated set of arguments that consist of poorly constructed and otherwise really - bad - for - the - soul material.

He is somewhat sympathetic to Markham's argument but devotes most of the review to regretting that Markham has fallen under the bad influence of Richard John Neuhaus.

Although the argument is a mere two sentences, it aptly summarizes why many Christians are no help in the pursuit of racial justice, and it is loaded with a myriad of bad ideas — an impressive accomplishment for 11 words.

My understanding is that this family is pretty well off financially, but the welfare, healthcare and education arguments still beg the question of why my government keeps taking the money I earn and indiscriminately rewarding it to people that make bad decisions.

@Vic: If you want to believe something badly enough you can convince yourself of almost anything, because when you want to believe something you evaluate potential arguments and evidence through the lens of a very strong bias.

The claim of privileged access is not saved by arguing that each of us intuitively grasps this self without analysis or argument, that each of us singly grasps the essence of experience in this intuition, and that the analysis or argument is required only (1) to call it to the attention of those who have not noticed it, or (2) to defend the claim of such an intuition against those who deny it for no or bad reasons, or (3) to develop its implications and describe its content.

His behavior seems uncalled for, like the argument or resentment of a teenager in a bad mood.

If their argument wasn't so flimsy, this might even seem like an outright attack on faith (however, given the nature of the whole list, it's really hard to take it seriously, and see it as anything more than a bad hot take for a sake of a hot take.)

The arguments Cooperman and Smith give about why polling about religion isn't all that bad are quite familiar to those of us who follow polling.

If he was not God, he was a fraud and therefore no example of morality — a popular summary of the argument was that Jesus was «either mad, bad or God».

It is not the worst idea but I refuse to believe the end - all argument of economics was conceived in the 16th century.

I've always been so afraid of their arguments... and now I wonder more and more if that was because I knew that in my «heart of hearts» I was inclined to believe them, which was sinful and bad and a one - way ticket to hell....

I am just saying your arguments against seem to be the very worst of the type.

Dawkins» view of the Bible either betrays a remarkable ignorance of the key principles of biblical criticism or, worse, an intentional disregard of those principles in order to sell his argument.

This is one of the worst morality arguments I've ever heard.

But, even more, Pascal's argument needs infinity to make itself run: The infinitely good consequences of belief, and infinitely bad consequences of disbelief, are necessary to overcome the minutely small possibilities it says it answers.

We should be delighted by a credible argument that nothing bad was done to the children of the McMartin Preschool, or Neverland Ranch, or wherever.

The oral argument defense of Obamacare's constitutionality so far has not just been bad, as has been reported, but has been stunningly bad.

In short, it makes worse the problem of irresolvable moral arguments between people.

Badly written, pretentious and irresponsible in its claims and arguments, wholly lacking in historical sophistication and mastery of its sources, it nevertheless remains our only theological correlation of the original religious ground of Christianity with the higher religious expressions of Oriental mysticism.

Now, I know all the arguments: they were not alone in this behaviour, it was the culture of the time, the Catholics were just as bad, etc, but if we want to truly remember the Reformation then the best way is not merely to get all excited about the theology, but also to be honest about the dodgy goings - on.

Eric: Please don't confuse unity and tolerance with the lack of argument, debate, heated discussion, or even bad language.

nakedpastor said, on December 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm Eric: Please don't confuse unity and tolerance with the lack of argument, debate, heated discussion, or even bad language.

no no no, i first engage them in a conversation... normally ending badly due to them not liking my choice of argument or tools i use in a conversation over belief... so in short i am norally the one insulted and left to think... which i believe is the same way children act when they hear the word «NO»... but i have had some great conversations with people over religion, its just a rare thing.

here's the argument to your stupid hedge bet... which is a weak reason to believe by the way... if there is a god, he is the all knowing, all loving, all accepting kind of god and he will recognize those that led good lives and those that led bad ones and regardless of their religious beliefs will judge them on their actions and be allowed into this heaven.

fishon, that plane argument was the worst explanation of faith I have ever heard... -------- NO KIDDING.

C. Both athiests and Christians are capable of doing both good and bad things, therefore we should stop repeating the same arguments over and over and feeding of trolls.

So the argument of this article is that not being a part of a major religion is a bad thing because those who don't aren't picking a «side», and because they lack a moral compass for self betterment.

I don't bother with many other comment sections on the internet, so if she wants to explain to me how a complete lack of proof led her in one of the worst possible directions or how her lack of understanding of morals and ethics lead her to choose the most criminal of religious cults to join..., then that would be great and I'm sure we could all enjoy picking apart her arguments for her «conversion» to those of us who know the difference between reason, logic, common sense, and ethics and morals and empathy and sympathy... as I would guess she doesn't give a crap anyway I doubt she'll show up here.

When we familiarize ourselves with only one side of the debate (typically the side ultimately found to be just) we miss the full depth of the argument and, worse yet, slip into a sort of historical amnesia that allows us to believe we too would have chosen the side of good on account of its seemingly obvious virtue.

Exactly, I will change my mind when better information comes available... but the arguments in support of CHristianity get worse the more they are inverstigated.

I think the argument could be made that this Church teaching is not based upon the idea that marital sex intentionally practised during infertile periods is intrinsically «imperfect» - read, «somewhat bad» - but upon the divine command of Genesis 1:28: «Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth.»

That is, they give arguments in favor of their views as if questions of better and worse, truth or falsehood, were relevant to the outcome, as if, in other words, rational decision was possible.

Afraid of being branded as moralists, or even worse, proselytizers, politicians cling to surface arguments that remain in the public's comfort zone, choosing sides in the familiar debates on school prayer, pornography, media immorality and abortion.

Don't fall into CNN or Fox Network lies, they don't care about God or your eternal salvation, just posting something so Ungodly like this is so Bad, (listen... Get close to Christ the redeemer of mankind) don't get into foolish arguments like this, Hollywood and all media is just the tipping point of the iceberg of something more evil happening, and to believers: get your doctrine straight and don't defend the works of this man (Stephen King) he is not giving glory to God with his live and work, there's many men of God that need your support that really give glory to God.

BTW, I think one of the strongest arguments against an all - knowing, loving creator god is that Cocaine is bad for you.

This intellectual formation works against the metaphysical foundations of natural law reasoning, and therefore most people find the arguments remote and unconvincing — «academic» in the bad sense of being about something other than the real world we live in.

Indeed, even one of the worthies quoted on the back cover has got it wrong: Wilson does not argue that «the criminal justice system has become a kind of theater of the absurd» with murder «explained away by arguments like having a bad day.»

We need to invent a new word for people willing to believe the writings of unknown authors, of unknown origin, of an unknown but ancient time, which is badly worded, internally AND externally (with modern science) inconsistent, full of statements with no actual arguments to back them up, with the only decently educated people to back it all up are theologians who twist the meaning of words and commit logical fallacies and still only try to prove that SOMETHING must exist, not that christianity is the truth.

You are not one of them however since any argument you tend to make has the bad habit of being laced with pointless insults.

It is no longer philistine to lay the rude hands of logical analysis upon them — and they need not come out the worse for so doing, as Peirce noted so well in his paper «Neglected Argument» years back!

How bad do you have to be losing an argument to suddenly bring up the civil war out of nowhere?

This whole «buying broccoli argument is one of the worst the Right Wing has ever come up with.

VanHagar, your latest line of argument actually makes your case even worse.