Sentences with phrase «political arguments used»

Not exact matches

For starters, you can use it as a way to list the pros and cons of each side of an argument, much in the same way that ProCon.org does for major and controversial political issues (see my example below).

Philosophical and political arguments, by which we might understand the meaning of the term as it is used most commonly today, begin with Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.

Best of all, she suggests that people of faith do themselves and others a disservice when they use the bible selectively to bolster their arguments for specific political views and lifestyle prescriptions, using it «as a blunt weapon», as she puts it.

The Founders» Constitution is, in the editors» words, «an anthology of reasons and of the political arguments that thoughtful men and women drew from, and used to support those reasons» (I: xi) The «reasons» and «arguments» are those of the founding generation and of the works that the» founders read.

In spite of all that can be said, in spite of every secular argument to justify money and the state and science and technology, to show that we are right to use these things, it is quite unbiblical to appeal to these agents of political power.

This is not meant as a critique as much as a fact: A demagogue is «a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.»

Their goal is to use scientific studies to bolster arguments against giving gay and lesbian people political or civil rights.

It held that talking about «political freedom is not a sound argument for attempting to use the blunt instrument of trade sanctions to win democratic rule for China.

The critics of sociobiology used arguments that were often political, but sometimes perilous to the evolution not just of behavior, but of bodies as well.

The Wikipedia page on U.S. ratification of the convention on the rights of the child cites a number of arguments used by political opposition to ratification in the U.S.. However, the page also cites that [President] Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as»em barrassing» and has promised to review it.

The data gained is not only used in the media, but in Parliament to give strength to arguments put forward on behalf of members, and to ensure the interests of small firms are at the top of the political agenda.

-1 - while the concept of the answer is correct, using strawman arguments to paint your political opponents as evil isn't a sound approach.

This can be used as a political argument — for example it was used by the Tories in 2008 to denounce Labour «over spending» even though spending had not really changed.

This argument was repeated by a lot of the supporters of the pay raise, and it is basically the same argument that is used for public financing of campaigns: to increase the field of candidates and bring more political outsiders into the mix.

«It is shameful that Republicans have used this tragedy and the deaths of our fellow Americans for political gain,» Cummings continued, hinting at the ethical argument Democrats will make — with fresh grist — against the majority.

What they are doing is a perfectly acceptable political mechanism that has been used numerous times in the past by both republicans and democrats; thus this pathetic argument about them not doing their jobs etc is completely disingenuous because they are, in fact, doing their jobs.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman used a similar argument in denying a request from Crain's for e-mails he traded with Jennifer Cunningham, a top political consultant at SKDKnickerbocker and his former wife.

When voting is that imminent, the argument goes, an ad saying that Candidate Smith hates apple pie has an inherently political meaning, even if a magic word isn't used.

It may be to protest that the advocates of the free market use simplistic economic arguments to lend support to their political agenda.

I've used RC in skeptic arguments and they were just called political by the naysayers.

What might have gone away, had they never opened their mouths on the topic, is the political argument over Common Core, which was quietly receding into implementation challenges in the states that still acknowledge that they're using those standards — and something similar in places that put new labels on the same (or very similar) content, as well as a few jurisdictions that are still struggling to come up with anything nearly as good on their own.

There is, in other words, a strong argument against attempts by government to use schooling to achieve political or cultural change - or stability, for that matter.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.

Creative Conversation: «She Who Writes Herstory Rewrites History» Part 3 «I am not a painter in the strictest sense... I am a political strategist who uses a visual language to encourage conversation, argument, change.»

«I am not a painter in the strictest sense... I am a political strategist who uses a visual language to encourage conversation, argument, change.»

Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates in paragraph 30 of his skeleton argument

I've used RC in skeptic arguments and they were just called political by the naysayers.

You can not argue with the science (I don't think you have a clue about that anyway) but use a political argument which is not backed up by any scientific evidence.

The problem is with factoids like «temperatures are rising» being used to arm moral and political arguments.

What we're interested in is how scientific «facts» are used to make political arguments.

The problem with this «end justifies the means» argument — where the means involved is the abhorrent use of a pejorative descriptor to devalue the arguers of alternative points of view rather than their arguments at the political and social level — is that it is as close to absolute evil in social and public discourse as it is possible to get.

The letter, entirely devoid of a scientific argument, uses scientific authority to make a political argument, and to close down debate.

This is why the political argument is using the climate change as a problem in behalf of the poor.

TJA laments «I never expect you [FOMD] to discuss any science that has a political dimension using scientific arguments.»

They come at a vital time because for every major city like New York or Paris moving huge amounts of money and using their political power to take on Big Oil, we need dozens of successful divestment campaigns on our campuses, and hundreds of grassroots organisers to win arguments in our communities.

In other words, you can use the ambiguous «peer reviewed scientific consensus» to construct dramatic stories about catastrophe, and you can use this urgency to develop political arguments with the blessing of «science».

He said that it was an illustration used to make his argument clear and that he gave figures only «when I am speaking to a political leader or policy maker who says that in order to sell his message, he absolutely must have some number.»

It strikes me that climate catastrophism is used in the service of political arguments, because the exhaustion of those who attach themselves to a particular view of how society should be organised leaves them unable to articulate a compelling argument for such change, be it left or right.

Environmentalists have failed to make the political argument for Environmentalism using science.

It's easy to find a number of success stories on the power of political decisions as the industry has opposed using economic arguments also changes that have been easy to make (like some required changes for cars) or that did indeed allow for rapid technology development as reduction of sulfur emissions or replacement of ozone damaging chemicals by safer ones.

If you analyze them from the political aspect of — «we want to control the economy, what arguments can we use to do so,» they make a lot more sense.

What I find particularly insidious in the largely manufactured debates over hockey sticks, Climategate, and similar red herrings, is the attempt to portray the real scientific issues as merely matters of opinion, as though choosing to believe Wegman vs. Mann, or Hansen vs. Lindzen, has no more objective validity than one's choice of favorite sports teams (I was going to use political parties, but that's another argument).

Although they conducted a careful review of the science behind the safety of DDT use, the then Administrator ignored this evidence and succumbed to the political and emotional arguments advanced by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring.

Lucas demonstrates how political environmentalism uses superficially plausible scientific arguments to create fear and political legitimacy.

For example, a casual perusal of the online legal research service Westlaw reveals that «mumbo jumbo» appears at least 251 times in judicial opinions.8 «Jibber - jabber» shows up just seven times (although surprisingly used by parties, rather than in statements from the court), while the more prosaic «gobbledygook» has 126 hits in the legal database.9 Believed to have been coined in 1944 by U.S. Rep. Maury Maverick of Texas, «gobbledygook» has been used by everyone from political figures referring to bureaucratic doublespeak (for example, President Ronald Reagan's stinging 1985 indictment of tax law revisions as «cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to have high - priced legal and tax advisers») to judges decrying the indecipherable arguments and pleadings of the lawyers practicing before them.

The use of incorrect statistics and skewed economic arguments to demand the exclusion of Temporary Foreign Workers by people all along the political spectrumhearkens to a lengthy history of exclusion of immigrants from Canada.

Thus, arguments in favor of expanding the definition of «war» to encompass «bloodless» cyber actions are less a consequence of the supposed inadequacies of the law of war and more the result of political and military leaders, news media, and others focusing first and foremost on the instruments of cyber conflict rather than their effects or intent of their use.

The results of my research were used to support overall arguments made in a book about negative political ads.

This philosophy is a well - trotted - out argument used by many left - wing, as well as by some confused right - wing, political theorest economists, in the name of of pursuing so - called equity within the operation of a now - centralist, so - called freely inspired, but controlled nevertheless, free market system of distributing goods and services in a manner serving the best economic interests of the most people most of the time... yes?