Sentences with phrase «is a false argument»

But it's a false argument.

It's a false argument.

It is a false argument to say that Americans won't do certain jobs thus we have to have illegals to fill the gap.

The science vs. religion debate is a false argument.

This is a false argument.

However, this may be a false argument.

But that's a false argument.

I think this is a false argument.

This is a false argument.

Your statement that «The seasonal cycle simply is a false argument» is pure arm - waving intended to ignore the fact that rise of any year is the residual of the seasonal variation in that year.

The seasonal cycle simply is a false argument, as that doesn't influence the trend (neither do the tides for sea levels...).

At least you admit Trenberth's or your numbers are wrong, The second one is a false argument.

It is a false argument that there is an over-supply of lawyers.

This is a false argument we hear over and over in trial.

Not exact matches

This argument assumes that people will believe an organization is objective and unbiased so long as it uses words like «false» or «inaccurate» or «unsupported,» rather than the word «lie.»

Earlier this year, Wall Street Journal editor Gerard Baker made a similar argument, saying the word lie «implies much more than just saying something that's false.

Essentially, Stumpf's argument is that he accepts responsibility for the scandal, but that senior executives did not create a culture that encouraged the type of behavior that led to employees opening 2 million false accounts.

«Elliott has always behaved ethically in its disputes with corporate managements and boards, and it is regrettable and disappointing that certain parties adverse to us would choose to promote false allegations about us rather than engage on the merits of our arguments in good faith.»

Over the short - term, unfortunately, there is no assurance that investors or analysts will quickly recognize that this market is trading on the basis of false premises about earnings and valuation (though my impression is that those who wake up based on reasoned argument and evidence will be better off than those who wake up based on investment losses).

In fact, however, the SEC's argument is false.

These arguments derive from the false belief that a recession is defined as two quarters of negative GDP growth.

Further, Rosenstein swiftly smacked down the Trump team's false argument that somehow the President is above the law and therefore can not obstruct justice.

by There are a nine prevalent myths and false arguments that bankers and their puppet commercial investment firms have used to keep people from buying physical gold and physical silver over the years (remember the paper GLD and the paper SLV is NOT a proxy for physical gold and physical silver and from the information -LSB-...]

This is an increase in genetic information and your argument fails by a false initial premise.

For them ideas, especially political ones, are badges of elite membership, not notions that could be true or false, not arguments that can be made or refuted.

If, for the sake of argument, evolution is true, then creationism is false.

Instead, we're confronted with arguments framed as a hard, false choice between sound economic policies and social programs, between fiscal realities and compassionate acts.

It's embarrassing that so many Americans, people who say they believe in freedom and equality, have spent so much time and energy trying to justify being anti gay marriage - with false arguments from the Bible (as thought that should be the only source of their decisions).

The idea of an «absolute antidote» suggests a different concept of the human than is presumed in Hitchens's argument: a being capable of enslavement by his darker side, one whose infinite desire for something beyond himself can be short - circuited into various «false infinities» (Ratzinger), who can redeem himself only by restoring the circuitry of his absolute relationship with his Generator.

The argument is fallacious, we are told, because it is based upon the implicit, but false, assumption that

If you have even that very basic simple fact wrong, it indicates you are basing a portion of your argument on false information.

This is false, and thus, so is your argument.

The best way to meet Boswell's argument is to grant for a moment that the O.T. prohibitions reflect idolatrous worship practices, that homosexual acts are wrong because they are used liturgically in false worship of false gods and goddesses.

That argument is no different than a creationist thinking that proving evolution false makes them right by default.

So the argument that Christians require sacraments because otherwise we get all up in our head and detached from the world is just empirically false.

The argument states that no one would die for something they knew to be false.

If this is true, then the argument that the universe is self - sufficient and self - transcendent is false.

Why lie and make completely false arguments that are transparent?

Because of the «ism» at the end, making it appear as if it were an ideology, and the fact that they do not understand the definition of the word... and many seek to use a «false equivalency» in a bid to bolster their failed arguments, too.

Such a false argument — animals are not gay — you are probably going to tell me not to eat shrimp too — same ol boring stuff — Did mohamid commit pediphilia and kill people and inslave people?

Thus examination of the argument from parsimony serves finally to suggest not merely that Whiteheadian panpsychism remains unwarranted, but also that it is actually incompatible with what it seems responsible to take to be facts about a physical world, and should therefore be deemed false.

You may not have changed the difeintion, but you are certainly NOT using the accepted definition I found on over 12 sites, including religious ones, so start with the correct definition, and you will see you causal chain argument is false.

Your argument is simplistic, false on the surface, and downright ludicrous when examined in any detail.

Not because I am in complete agreement with the argument, but because it is a bracing corrective to the false virtue of mediocrity so pervasive in our society, and not least in our churches.

Finally, the Hitler argument («he began with gun control») not only is historically inaccurate; it elicits real fear with a false metaphor.

So not only is your argument weak, so is the method you take for your arguing by the same standard that you judge religion to be false.

And it's a weak argument at best, twisting words to fit an agenda but not addressing a false prophecy that disproves your belief and quantifies it as myth alongside other religions.

@Russ, Your argument about infants is false.

I especially like the parts about the rather abstract sense of victimhood, which blinds us to real suffering, and the assumption that modern thinkers aren't «rational agents» who give arguments that need to be engaged, because they're characteristically neither wholly true nor wholly false.

The argument is false.