Sentences with phrase «think simple arguments»

Not exact matches

How would any country in the mid east react if I and 30 Christians hoped in planes and took out 3000 people... (I am not Christian and would likely not ride in a plane with that many neurotic people, but for arguments sake... personally I think religion is the fastest road to hell, but that's another debate)... the answer is simple... Jihad... how do I make such a simple 1 word answer... Ayatollah in Iran... he has a Jihad panic button... Osama Bin Laden... he has one too... that dude in Iran that no one knows or cares how to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosque.

Basically I think now that the argument (EWM 211 - 19) needs to be developed in terms of two stages, the first concerning the reorientation brought about by conceiving an initial phase of simple physical feelings in concrescence, and then a second stage introduced by the idea of «subjective aim.»

The argument against sugar tax made simple Coca - Cola Enterprises CEO John Brock came out fighting against the UK government's proposed sugar tax, saying he doesn't think it will pass uncha... read more

The argument against sugar tax made simple Coca - Cola Enterprises CEO John Brock came out fighting against the UK government's proposed sugar tax, saying he doesn't think it will pass uncha

Thank you, good to see some people can think for themselves I will put your thumbs down to hitting a nreve on the so called fans, you said something which is true and they didn't like it... so they HAD to do something, even if it is as simple as disliking as they can't put forward a logical argument.

Small bonus: ``... In fact, I do not think anyone grasped the line of argument through inability to follow the simple algebraic reasoning which Fritz Müller has adopted.»

It's a fine, if simple, argument that James Solomon's screenplay makes, envisioning an entire military court proceeding as political theater — to show those in the North that they mean business about unity and to scare those in the South who might have similar bloody thoughts.

A problem with Loveless's argument is that many of my fellow «disruptors» and I who think that it is important to disrupt the education system think this way not under the mindset that it will — or should — help with multiple intelligences or learning styles, but instead because of a simpler and more rigorously tested notion that is far less ideological than Loveless assumes.

A lot of people think bonds are safer than stocks but Nick Murray in Simple Wealth, Inevitable Wealth makes a very good argument that bonds are actually more risky — the risk being that inflation will eat up portfolio value and you are more likely to outlive your investments.

I think that I can actually understand this argument; however, I think most vets and other scientists feel that it is a bad argument for the simple reason that dogs are no longer really wild animals.

Sure, one could make the argument that the game is as wide as the ocean but as shallow as a puddle since individually all the mechanics are simple, basic affairs, and yet that would be missing the point; if they were deeper then I don't think the game would be as relaxing and peaceful as it is.

«I think King.com has a strong argument that most of the consumer base in question (e.g., those purchasing on app stores, etc.) are impulse buyers, and thus may be more inclined to make snap judgments based on simple word usage like «candy» and «saga»,» he or she wrote.

I think the argument is much simpler than this.

Ray's answer makes it obvious (for me) that reality is very complex and far from being explainable by simple, hand - made arguments for the general audience; that's why I think that trying to explain «simply» the very complex phenomena involved in radiation transfer is just lost time - and in my opinion the REAL issues associated with social impacts of GW are not primarily associated with the detailed physics of the phenomenon.

If you end up in trying to convince someone and an opponent demonstrates that your arguments contradict simple facts then, what do you think your success is?

In a significantly powerful review paper (Ghil et al 2011) the arguments as posed in a binary way, are not as simple as he thinks nor ameanable to archaic methodology that has been to justify a number of spurious arguments eg Lenton.

I will try to get some more specific answers for you and either correct or fill out this article, but I think the main gist of the argument is that there are other factors at play and the simple lack of a perfect correlation does not mean that CO2 is not the primary driver of the general warming seen since 1900.

The final argument of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003]-- that CO2 has a smaller effect on climate than previously thought — is based on a simple regression analysis of smoothed temperature and CO2 reconstructions.

I know very little about tropical dynamics, but have a half - thought question related to the tropical lapse rate: Is there a simple argument for why the relative humidity over land is expected to remain fixed?

I think there is an argument for both, the white is beautiful and simple and the yellow creates that pop of colour that I love.