Sentences with phrase «how fallacious»

Yet another glowing neon sign pointing out how fallacious the whole «Jony Ive has checked out» narrative really was.

Spencer is making ridiculous arguments, yet he clearly is smart enough to know how fallacious they are and it doesn't take a top expert to point them out.

In an older thread I chastised someone, and pointed out how fallacious they sounded, for continually harping on «deniers of global warming».

Since, evidently, you aren't intelligent to see how fallacious your statements are, I'll go through them one by one:

Not exact matches

The fact that he converted to christianity just before he died and made unsupported claims, does not make the OP fallacious — the bible was written by primitive people with no knowledge of how the Solar system was created or how species evolved.

How can you make such an ignorant and blatant «over-generalization'to claim this fallacious If / then logic which goes like this... (If) you disrespect (a)(muslim)... (THEN)(they) kill 3,000 people., blah blah, blah... So... If I should go out and disrespect a muslim, which I wouldn't do, but if I would (hypothetically speaking) 3,000 people are going to die...?

Ok, to go along with this incredibly fallacious line of thinking, how come, as the rest of the world embraces evolution, they have also surpassed us education of just about every discipline.

Nah:» * yawn * Yes, yes, because a substantive rebuttal showing (1) the fallacy being used, (2) why it's fallacious, and (3) demonstrating how and why that makes «Colin's» argument a failure is «stupid» and «ironic» while avoiding being «logical».

* yawn * Yes, yes, because a substantive rebuttal showing (1) the fallacy being used, (2) why it's fallacious, and (3) demonstrating how and why that makes «Colin's» argument a failure is «stupid» and «ironic» while avoiding being «logical».

Krauss» fallacious account of how something can come from nothing, though presented as a great breakthrough, and praised as such by Dawkins in his afterword, is largely a rehash of ideas already put forward by Hawking, Mlodinow, and some less eminent physics popularizers.

It's wonderful how apologists so frequently — and cluelessly — attempt to assert a fallacious moral highroad.

What's telling about the tribunal report are the details of how even harmless information which would have struggled to get any press attention was aggressively kept secret by the DWP with a variety of fallacious arguments.

So, removing the EGO allows for us to be able to seek truth and not be locked into fallacious arguments that resort into eventually (maybe way down the line) facing how wrong we may have been.

It's always amusing to read in the «skept - o - sphere,» the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments on the subject of whether there is a «consensus» and even more interestingly, precisely how big that «consensus» is, from people who say that the noting the existence of a «consensus» is not only a fallacious argument, but that in fact noting that there is a «consensus» is antithetical to the valid practice of science.

Nye made the fallacious comparison about how Exxon Mobil used its climate data to how the tobacco industry suppressed cancer study results.

Brandon Shollenberger was going to try to play stump the chump by saying they couldn't get something right based on where he lives, thus playing up a fallacious argument of arbitrary selection — ala the usual phrase «if it can't get this right, how can it get that right?».

Looking just at the remarks in this thread, how many respondents show no pretense of politeness, have never been constructive (except in the sense of constructing fallacious arguments), could never persuade with such tract and bile, and show hypocrisy with every line to such degree that one can be safe in concluding they would never be persuaded by science or reason?