Sentences with phrase «correct as your argument»

Not exact matches

Out of all the postings on this site today, I found «Derp's «post the most fascinating and informative, as well as deeply revealing.Even after boasting of what seems to be a practically perfect live by any measure, he informs us that he takes pleasure in mocking and ridiculing those of faith who are presumably his opposite; I can only wonder if, given all his supposed accomplishments, he is smart enough to realize how deeply revealing of his true character his remarks are.As a believer, I rarely engage in arguments with my atheist friends, and like to think I wouldn't lower myself to the level of juvenile name - calling and personal attacks against whatever my atheist friends hold dear.Most of the time we simply agree to disagree; when they hold forth with misinformation or ignorance on their assumed «knowledge «of my faith, I try to gently correct them; I certainly don't allow any disagreements we have to devolve into hateful insults and name - calling.

And you claim to fall on Tony's side of the argument, that as long as your theology is correct you're going to be fine.

To say that something that has very large errors is disagreeing with something else is not a convincing argument as to which one is correct.

I hope you don't find it insulting when I say that as is your arguments often require us to accept without any reason that the way you understand some verses is correct yet you can dismiss any verse you chose by saying that their understanding is a «misapplication», perhaps supplying a reasonable approach to how one goes about interpreting Scripture in general could clear up that problem.

As an extension of your argument, according to what you've said before, nothing happens outside your god's plan correct?

This argument — we have to obey the law — would not be accepted on matters such as race, asylum seekers, green issues or others considered important by the politically correct.

That formally correct fact won't matter much, so long as Farrow does not adequately trouble himself to translate his particular religious arguments into general public arguments.

game you speak of, but as someone who also found most church going unprofitable some years ago, that's not an argument that holds any real credit (I now know plenty of people who are likewise displaced from regular church - going, who still have a faith, so you are correct).

Let us grant for the sake of argument that Acts is accurate, that Paul is correct, and that Paul meant to imply that the Easter appearances were similar to his in content as well as in function.

How can anyone, irrespective of which side the argument comes from, claim himself / herself as correct.

Like I said earlier,» Its not as if this argument is correct, but there is something truthful, saddening and quite painful about it».....

Its not as if this argument is correct, but there is something truthful, saddening and quite painful about it... Anyone remember the FA cup final loss against a full squad Chelsea?

I'm absolutely on the side of Motherlode columnist Lisa Belkin who shoots down this argument as not only «backwards» but also upholding the idea that these «archaically - structured» workplace models are somehow inherently correct — simply because they're old.

They defended Llewellyn's decision to stop any discussion of phone - hacking between Yates and Cameron as operationally sound (correct) but misunderstood the argument that this situation only pertained because of Cameron's error in hiring Coulson in the first place.

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.

-1 - while the concept of the answer is correct, using strawman arguments to paint your political opponents as evil isn't a sound approach.

I wasn't going to even reply as this is degenerating into a playground argument, yet I couldn't let others think that your arguments are correct.

[continued from previous post] And the widespread working class experience of declining wages due to competition from immigrants was one of the motivations that led many to vote for Leave, which was what the question asked for, rather than for arguments as to whether Leave or Remain was correct overall.

As usual John P Reid you are correct, mostly, but I wish you would marshal your arguments better and use paragraphs.

THE LURE OF POLITICALLY CORRECT DIETS For some high - minded teenagers, anti-saturated fat dogma may dovetail rather conveniently with pro-vegetarian arguments, 12 particularly because the search for «meaningful moral standards, values and belief systems» is a critical developmental task during adolescence.13 (It should be noted that moralistic claims in favor of vegetarianism often prevent earnest vegetarian teens from coming face to face with underlying farming realities — including the fact that sustainable farming requires enriching soil with animal products such as bone meal and manure.12) Recognizing the fact that adolescent boys also can be preoccupied with physical concerns about weight or athletic prowess, it is perhaps not terribly surprising that a sizeable proportion of teenage boys appear to be persuaded by advice that vegetarianism is a «healthy» lifestyle.

If this argument is correct, it is a great testament to the «primitive wisdom» documented by Weston Price, which included family planning, as he explained in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (p. 398):

«In other words, the projections shown here were made before the observations confirmed them as being correct, striking at the heart of the argument that modellers tune their models to yield the correct climate change results.»

I am new to the science blogosphere and have not fully digested the proper way to conduct science in this realm, but it seems to me that the choice to decline a «bet» as to who is correct in a scientific discussion of a certain topic is hardly relevant as to the efficacy of a given argument one way or the other.

I've made these points before, but as far as I can tell no one noticed because they were too far down the thread (another example of the fallacy of the «you can always correct mistakes by responding on the blog» argument).

And, after setting up that strawman, cite a 1951 paper citing a 1938 paper as evidence your strawman argument is correct.

We have to establish the correct science, and convince as many as we can of our fellow scientists, who indifferently accept the AGW arguments, trusting on the scientific integrity of scientists of other fields.

Robert, you are correct that there are many kinds of skeptics, specifically as many as there are steps in the AGW argument, which is a lot.

Skeptical101 # 14 My interpretation and synopsis of the considerable technical detail and references provided by Tom Curtis # 15 & One Planet # 16, # 17 is that your»... not use it as an argument to support AGW» is correct if used over periods in which short term natural variability influences the trend strongly (< 30 years was mentioned sometimes) and, in particular, the models are not able to predict the ENSO conditions at all well.

Just think how much easier your argument would be now (correct though it is), if you and the rest of your tribe hadn't been pitching the surface temps as «global average temperature» for so long.

Anyone who follows the climate change debate for a while must soon notice that when the denialistas have one of their argument proven wrong, or one factual misrepresentation corrected, they just continue as if nothing had happened.

As virtually all graphs showing heating rely to some degree on these temp guages (because they are numerous and relatively well maintained and stable), and most alarmists do not properly correct for it (by weighting the undisturbed stations more heavily, or eliminating the corrupted ones), I do not think much of these graphs or this argument.

If there are 1000 stations in Europe with an average temperature of 15C, and 10 stations in North Africa with an average temperature of 25C, then if you calculate the average as T = (15 * 1000 + 25 * 10) / (1000 +10) = 15.099 C you run into Simpson's paradox, but if you do it correctly [assuming for the sake of the argument that Europe and North Africa have the same area], then you get the correct T = (15 +25) / 2 = 20C.

As it happens, the arguments for that being the correct basis are very similar to the arguments applying in the case of Forster / Gregory 06.

(As propaganda depends on quantity and repetition... The truth just needs to be heard by a thinking mind...) So truthful questions and truthful evidence and truthful doubts and truthful counter points are attacked, vilified (usually «attack the messenger»), deleted, and drowned out in a flood of non-sequitur and appeal to authority arguments... (Another useful tool, btw, is just to measure the number of Logical Fallacies vs correct logical syllogisms... the more LF the more it's propaganda... the more correct logical syllogisms, data included btw, the less propaganda and the more honest science... but I haven't named that thought tool yet... Perhaps the LF Ratio?

In truth the conclusion Dr Cury has is the correct one, and Martha is an apologist for the IPCC relying solely on the inclusion of weasel phrasings as the crux of her argument.

The reason for making absolutely sure we knew where the 6.8 weighting was applied is so as to get beyond the narrow (but correct) argument you made in your last paragraph.

When I do it, my argument in response to too - short trendlines sometimes is to supply alternative trendlines for exactly the same period that show the opposite sign, as proof by counterexample to indicate the specific trendline suggested is invalid; sometimes to supply long - enough trendlines when such are available, to illustrate a more correct method; sometimes to apply a methodologically valid use of short trendlines within a framework of a longer timespan and suggest the appropriate Bayesian treatment to predict the very low likelihood of the true trend being actually cooling given the too short trendline.

What I am reading here are all sorts of a) rationalizations that «it can't be correct because I do not agree with...», b) arguments that it «violates basic physics» or c) other theoretical objections to equations used or suggested, but these are all utterly meaningless, unless the authors of the paper concede that these arguments have invalidated their conclusions (which has not occurred as yet.)

But since those are the exact points in question (whether the assumptions are correct, and whether the model reflects those assumptions correctly), you can see that using model results as evidence is a circular argument.

Hi Dr. Pratt You logic and your argument are good, but in view of the global temperatures which represent oceans, Arctic, Siberia, Antarctica and many other non - or sparsely populated areas doesn't stand as correct.

If we assume that your 240 w / m2 is correct, we can use Stefan - Boltzman Law to calculate the «effective» black body temperature of the earth, which if you accept «average» as an argument, would occur not at earth surface, but somewhere between earth surface and the top of the atmosphere.

The use of labels such as «warmist» and «skeptic,» is symptomatic of the kind of heuristic in which the correct inference is identified by argumentum ad vericundium (argument from authority).

To put it simply, the choice of the correct substantive legal basis can not depend on the quality of the association between the EU and the third country, and if so, only as a supportive or secondary argument.

He rejected the argument that the lack of response indicated a failure to accept that letter as a correct record.

There is an argument, as Peers says, that the Court should have rephrased it to ask the correct question.

In those cases, written argument is used, not in lieu of oral argument, but in addition to and usually as a precursor to oral argument.If a trial judge requires arguments to be made by written submissions, the trial judge must allow counsel, after written argument has been exchanged, to make oral arguments in the presence of the accused to supplement, correct, or otherwise amplify the written argument.

Carvin is correct, however, that his best chance of winning this case is to hope that the justices will place their partisan preferences before the law, as the legal arguments presented in his briefs are weak.

In other words, if Duffy was not legally required to pay back the money — in other words, if his ultimate position on the Senate expenses was correct — there is at least an argument to be made that he did not receive a benefit as that term is understood in section 121.

If you elect to represent yourself, you will be held to the same standards as an attorney and you will be expected to know trial procedure as well as the correct form for legal arguments to prove your innocence.

• What is going to happen to your teenager if you don't take steps now to change his behavior right now • Why when you listen to what your child says to you, you are missing 93 % of what is going on • Your teen's number one priority, and why this stops him from obeying you • Why all the behavioral techniques you have read in so many parenting books never work on your child... and what does work • Why using punishments, consequences, and coercion will destroy your home • Four reasons your teenager will defy your requests and refuse to obey you, and what you can do about each one • Medical interventions: medicines and natural supplements that have been proven to help with ODD behavior in 90 % of teens • The four underlying causes of defiant behavior, and how you can use them to eliminate arguing, talking back, and abusive behavior • Why most behavioral treatments and parenting books fail to help with defiant teenagers, and why they usually make things worse • How to side step power struggles and why you must do that • 9 parenting strategies that experts commonly recommend that will absolutely positively never work with your ODD child • Three reasons why rewarding good behavior is going to backfire - unless you know exactly the correct way to do it • How you may be helping your teenager to become defiant • Why your teenager sees you as an irritating nag, and how to change that • Five problems that you create when you respond to bad behavior • Why rewards and punishments don't work with defiant teens and what you can do instead that does work • 5 easy to use strategies to get your teen to cooperate • The key to understanding and eliminating the underlying cause of bad behavior • The one word that will allow you to control any argument you have with your child, allow you to maintain your dignity and authority as a parent, show your child that you are the one who is in charge • Ten keys to coping with a defiant child • How to handle a behavior problem in school • Three strategies that will put an end to homework battles • How to make the teacher your ally to eliminate your child's school defiance • A six word sentence that will get your child to obey you • Five things your child's teacher needs to know in order to be successful with your child • How to change bedtime from a battle into a chance to build your relationship • How a few properly placed words will transform your child and make him obedient and cooperative • 5 easy ways to gain your child's cooperation • How to refocus to get your child through school and get him to excel at what he is really good at • Why what you say and what your child hears have almost nothing in common • How to really uncover what is bothering your child so that you can improve his behavior