Sentences with phrase «how wrong that argument»

That argument has finally gone the way of the dodo because there are too many of us out there in the trenches who know just how wrong that argument is and we've been letting others know.

Not exact matches

They then conducted a series of experiments that measured how open to being wrong the volunteers were and how it affected their estimation of people with opposing views, as well as how accurately they'd understood the arguments they'd been presented with.

David had also come across a speech by former BP chief executive, Lord Browne, in which he spoke of the warnings company scientists had sounded about climate change, and how their arguments convinced him that it was wrong to side with climate denial.

In these moments, I am dead wrong, no matter how articulate my argument.

... well the same logic applys to god... i enjoy dropping these logic bombs on people and see how they react and hope that maybe that logic bomb will eventually set up a chain reaction in their consciousness... or maybe I am an egotistical f c k who just likes to have an unassaiable argument which with to beat others over the head with... maybe I am wrong to do so because the Human Condition is so cold and bleak in its finality that people need the cushion of god to go on with their everyday lives.

@ Jillienne «Stand YOUR own ground, don't expect people to forsake God by telling them how «impossible» it is for a man to be swallowed by a fish, an argument that really bears no weight actually, because frankly, if you believe that Dinosaurs once roamed the earth (a proven fact) there is nothing wrong with believing a man could have been swallowed by a giant whale... it's really not that strange..»

The argument never touches on any objection to IVF per se ¯ how the creation of new human beings in this way is itself wrong.

If as you say, «two wrongs [don't] make a right argument» then why not debate @Blarg's statement instead of inciting atheists condemnation of his / her arguments by indirectly making a blanket statement about how Atheist should be offended?

And he will never ever admit that his argument is wrong, no matter how thoroughly you destroy his untenable position.

Third, the reason Colin's arguments are ad hominems is because they try to refute religion / Catholicism by * gasp * insulting them, not by showing how and they're wrong in a meaningful sense.

One hates to make old arguments, but if this education teaches (as other sections of the report make clear that is must) the familiar doctrines about how very wrong it is to impose any kind of normative standard on the many forms that peoples» desires can take, on what basis does it exclude pornography or the sexualization of young girls as legitimate forms of the varied human sexual appetite?

Are you a Poe, stupid, or just hoping that no one is going to really break down how wrong your Ad Nauseum arguments are?

The weirdest part is that he doesn't just plow on but actually has said repeatedly how much sounder his arguments are and demonstrates over and over that he really can't see all the times he's shown to be wrong.

When Samuel commented on why it was wrong to sell Lucas Perez you brought up stats between Walcott and Perez and in that you proved using the stats why Walcott is better.If Wenger didn't have blond love for some of his players then why did he keep benching Perez when he was performing yet the average guys always got a look in the squad.So if there are stats which prove Walcott is better aren't there stats which also prove Perez is better?Think about that.You also said Perez is not as good as some of us make out.The funny thing is yesterday we had an argument on Giroud and I also tried to imply that Giroud is not as good as we make out and you opposed.You always kept bringing stats up to defend him.Do you know if Bendtner or Chamakh had scored 25 goals for Arsenal in any season they'd still have been regarded as average.You know why?Because quality has nothing to do with stats and is just a kind pf talent or state.It seems to me that you think you know it all.You also denied the fact that Wenger likes French players and that if Perez was French he wouldn't have been out in one season stating other players as examples.It seems to me that you deny things which are clear for everyone to see.If you think you know better than everyone go and teach Wenger how to win the trophy this season.

You'll probably get a long, well - supported argument about «exactly what is wrong with Raw,» and detailed thoughts on how the WWE has mismanaged their biggest prospects, but it all centers around how spectacle — the thing the WWE in particular depends so much on — needs to be managed very, very carefully.

Yeah of course - LEICESTER CITY are hundreds of millions in debt.If they won the league with an inferior set of players ans a fraction of our finances why is wrong to expect us to at least be able to compete.Trust me those Dustbin Lids up the road have a ground to pay for so wait and see how long those English Luvvies you seem to adore either hang around or are sold.You are putting forward a ridiculous argument.

@laninja, do nt get my last post wrong mate i am not defending that it was embarrasing and keane, as captain, should hav been a man and told the ref he made a mistake, but the way he grabbed the ball amidst the georgians complaining to the ref smacks of everything i hav been complaining about this week, but listen does that mean the other 15 squad members should suffer because keane lacks as much integrity as henry?i hav been surprised how easy lads hav found it to favour the french in this argument....

[Note: I published what I think are my most powerful arguments for what's wrong with the claims about how marriage transforms miserable single people into blissfully happy couples in Marriage vs. Single Life: How Science and the Media Got It So Wrwrong with the claims about how marriage transforms miserable single people into blissfully happy couples in Marriage vs. Single Life: How Science and the Media Got It So Wronhow marriage transforms miserable single people into blissfully happy couples in Marriage vs. Single Life: How Science and the Media Got It So WronHow Science and the Media Got It So WrongWrong.]

In «Consilience and Consensus» [Skeptic], Michael Shermer's arguments demonstrate how deniers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are wrong.

It's an honest portrayal of small town politics, how rumors become truth, and how sometimes no one's really right or wrong in an argument.

Below is a detailed argument, supported by math, proving that what you probable understand about «how the RRSP system works»... is wrong.

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.

You'd be picking entirely the wrong thing to build you argument on, which is exactly what's happening with Star Fox Zero; you think you're pointing out why it's better now, but your don't understand how, overall, it's actually worse.

Again, it is an argument which seems all wrong at first — how can you criticise an African American artist for failing to take into account what the African - Caribbean population would make of her work?

======================= It's puzzling how someone who recognises that banning DDT for the sake of the environment led to an epidemic - level rise in world malaria (Pandora's Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong) has such a crude (mis) understanding of the issues in the climate debate, for instance can not see the cost / benefit argument concerning fossil fuels.

And as a measure of how wrong the Court felt this argument is, they quoted Schoolhouse Rock (see the video below), writing that

James Delingpole makes the point very clearly at the end of the entry on «Global Warming» in his book How to be Right: «if the climate change doom mongers are really so sure all the evidence is on their side, why are they so keen to stifle any arguments which threaten to prove them wrong?»

If you can do either, you will be able to show me how my argument against the Rev is wrong.

What a bunch of mugs you lot are — all your arguments have been answered and exposed as nonsense on climateaudit.org, but you will never go there to discover how wrong you are, will you?

How horrible that would be, considering how successfully you have shown how wrong everything has been what I have been saying here, like in your reply to my arguments regarding the Fyfe et al., paper: https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-556How horrible that would be, considering how successfully you have shown how wrong everything has been what I have been saying here, like in your reply to my arguments regarding the Fyfe et al., paper: https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-556how successfully you have shown how wrong everything has been what I have been saying here, like in your reply to my arguments regarding the Fyfe et al., paper: https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-556how wrong everything has been what I have been saying here, like in your reply to my arguments regarding the Fyfe et al., paper: https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-556211

As more and more people have pointed out the heat accumulation in the deep ocean, a common argument in the denialosphere has been that the measurements are wrong, because how could heat accumulate in the deep ocean without first passing through the top layer and being detected via ARGO floats and the like (apparently they're also saying this heat was never noticed near the surface).

Will arguments, no matter how cogent, ever have any weight in the wrong debate?

As the argument degenerates on my side due to my increasing frustration at the ludicrous resistance I'm receiving from the RC person, they will refine their argument, move goalposts, argue over the precision and accuracy of my forecast, yabba on about how all orbital models of the inner solar system are wrong due to GIGO (which is rather ironic), and so forth.

How compelling do you find the arguments above and where are the arguments right or wrong?

I wonder know if this was the wrong argument and that with the advent of web 2.0 it is not the form of the intellectual content so much, as how the content can be used in more creative ways.

(The teacher pointed out that when «fights or arguments over something on Twitter, or Instagram, or just how their day went and having a bad day and somebody just reacts to them wrong,» having a gun in the classroom is the last thing you want.)

But the minute you open the door and drop your keys on the counter, you find yourself knee - deep in an argument about how he or she bought the wrong type of pepper.