Not exact matches
It is this latter conception of exchange justice that is
implied in John Paul II's endorsement of the market, especially in his
assertion (CA, No. 32) that the price of a commodity is determined
by contractual agreement between buyer and seller.
Is this violent possibility what the authors mean
by a «fundamentalist
assertion», or are they
implying something more?
The
implied conclusion to this
assertion is that «degenerates» can be identified through genetic testing and «weeded out»
by sterilizing the unfit — something that was imposed on many women during the period and endorsed
by powerful individuals, including Oliver Wendell Holmes.
It is troubling when individual works or entire movements are hidden from public view (in some cases for decades), accompanied
by denials or
implied denials, or
by indifference, of the existence of those works; and
assertions that
imply those works don't exist.
There have certainly been incorrect
assertions and headlines
implying that 20 ft of sea level
by 2100 was expected, but they are mostly based on a confusion of a transient rise with the eventual sea level rise which might take hundreds to thousands of years.
Anyone notice the huge contradiction between an author (Curry) that declares that all of climate science is bound
by uncertainty, yet in Curry's own research, the physics is stated
by assertion, with zero uncertainty
implied?
I don't know, I'm not part of that conspiracy, and I see a lot of
assertions on here and elsewhere
by people who
imply they are smart, or at least smart enough to know more on this issue than the climate scientists who actually professionally study it, who throw around large highfalutin science terms, but that repeatedly misconstrue the basic climate change issue itself, conflate the process of science with Climate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendum on it.
However, the General Court accepted Gifi's argument that the Board failed to examine all the evidence it had produced, and the Board's judgment did not mention several of the designs cited: «In the present case, it is clear that, in the light of the Board of Appeal's
assertion that it was required to re-examine the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety, followed
by a one -
by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the
implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.»