The bias against pro se litigants is reinforced every time someone makes irrelevant and
badly formed arguments in court.
Not exact matches
According to Radner, the book's
argument is flawed because it adopts the modern notion that «one's ideas
form the basis of religious identity and integrity» and touts the rectification of
bad ideas as the key to alleviating contemporary problems.
My second
argument is Ramsey's poor passing and selfish play compares
badly with Thomas Rosicky's recent brilliant
form?
Oddly enough, there seems to be significant support for, and I haven't heard any
argument against the idea that stress in many
forms including worrying about diet can be very
bad for your health with possible connections to cancer via free radicals and chemistry changes in the body.
My willingness to engage with Judith comes only because her qualifications are such that she should understand the science and
form logically coherent
arguments, and evaluate
bad ones.
Some of Popper's replies to his critics in The Philosophy of Karl Popper contain
arguments almost as
bad — for instance, in reply to the ease for determinism presented by Feigl and Meehl, Popper remarks that they were unable to predict the
form his reply would take, although Feigl and Meehl had explicitly disclaimed the ability to make such predictions.
For example, according to the conventional wisdom, «climate change will be
worse for the poor», and this
forms a substantial part of the
argument for emissions reduction.