And to an investor focused on value investing in the late 1990s, there were plenty
of illogical arguments to be found, whether it was a focus on eyeballs (webpage views) over profits, or any other metric that left one reminded of the story about a business losing money on every sale, but making it up on volume.
We see two logic fallacies (argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad numerum) committed at the same time — Excellent demonstrations
of an illogical argument.
Not exact matches
This is a simple
illogical argument one can learn about in first year
of University.
The
argument of free will is
illogical.
No, not mocked BECAUSE
of their lack
of knowledge, but because
of their lack
of knowledge, they came up with horrible
arguments and
illogical stuff.
Based upon my experience, it is all too often the atheist / agnostic audience that poses emotional, baseless,
illogical arguments that show a lack
of actual critical thinking.
If someone is making a screamingly
illogical argument, cite that fact in your own free speech to defeat that thought in the minds
of others.
Very nice to hear such reasonable thinking in a sea
of incoherent an
illogical religious
arguments.
Kind
of like getting into a serious and heated
argument with someone that believes in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny... beyond
illogical.
His
arguments are devoid
of facts, and his masquerade as a scientist, or whatever, is galling» «attempting to debunk the integrity
of the bible, and glorify the theory
of evolution is simply a tactic to lure unsuspecting seekers to abandon reason and science in order to embrace an
illogical, unverifiable, subjective based explanation
of the universe.
No, Theo — your
argument was
illogical on the point
of dependency.
This «costliest ticket in the PL / UK / Europe / world» mantra is a real balls - ache
of a dull,
illogical argument.
There is no doubt that Brand is intelligent and has a fabulous command
of the English language — which makes it doubly frustrating when he chooses to preface his
arguments with lazy straplines, or arrives at
illogical conclusions.
Dr O'Brien said: «Coming from countries with strong gun control policies, and a 30-fold lower rate
of gun - related homicides, we found the
arguments for opposing gun control counterintuitive and somewhat
illogical.
Alexandra, And a review
of the posts
of Victoria Strauss ALSO shows that the people who follow her around on the message boards are like mindless cult members, impervious to reason and lacking both judgment and basic logic skills, and often try to make completely
illogical claims and
arguments in a hopeless attempt to redeem their leader.
There's a lot
of reading comprehension fail (for example, in this particular case, the
illogical inference that noting a problem with Amazon's position a priori means one is on the «side»
of Hachette, especially when I've taken pains to note both companies work for their interest, not mine), and it's not my job to wander about the field, gently teaching people how to parse
arguments.
As described by Michael Lewis in his latest book, The Undoing Project, ``... when Danny heard an
illogical argument, he asked, What might that be true
of?»
This is the most
illogical argument of all when thinking about emergency funds.
Using the media as an outlet for education, we hope to raise the level
of awareness on important issues such as pet overpopulation and dog fighting, as well as debunking the unfounded,
illogical and fear - based
arguments that all too often lead to breed - specific bans and the heartbreaking extermination
of beautiful animals whose only crime is having been born.
I said it was
illogical in that a surprisingly large proportion
of the
arguments most often advanced in its favour are instances
of the dozen commonest fallacies in human discourse, as codified by Aristotle in his Refutations
of the Sophists 2350 years ago.
Curry not only takes the extreme range
of this — which is
illogical since, contorted
arguments to argue otherwise aside, she even goes beyond it: to, as quoted above, ludicrously conclude from all this that not only is it not just «reasonably possible» that half could be due to natural variation that just happens to coincide with what we would expect to see from the atmospheric alteration inadvertently undertaken, but that rather than it being somewhere in the middle
of up to half being due to variability, or a similarly large portion in fact being veiled, but all
of what «could» on the one end
of the range be, in fact, IS, but then goes beyond that.
But don't come back with «consensus» or «everybody knows» or
argument by assertion or any
of the other
illogical talking points normally used to «prove» the CAGW POV.
On AGW skeptical blogs, however, just as is the case on conspiracy theory blogs
of any kind (e.g. vaccination, moon landing, 9/11), it seems like there is a tacit agreement between fellow skeptics, and also the blog host, never to point out that an idea is flat out wrong or an
argument flat out
illogical so long as it purports to refute the «official» account.
Justifying articling simply because it's the process that all
of us endured is not - evidence based and is
illogical, and is a strange form
of argument for a profession populated by advocates.
So if, in the middle
of an
argument, you stop your partner to them they're being
illogical, you're probably doing it wrong.