Sentences with phrase «very public argument»

The game, which oddly enough is still listed on the marketplace, received polar reviews from critics and spawned a very public argument between the Hydrophobia creative director Deborah Jones, Edge magazine and Destructoid's Jim Sterling.

State Senator Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr., sent out a press release this morning to «set the record straight» about his very public argument with fellow Senator Kevin Parker, of Brooklyn.

REVERSES INTO spam blog («splog») comment spam very public arguments and embarrassments libel and slander disorganized lists time consumer

Not exact matches

The argument for no standards is an argument against the very idea of public decency.

As Christian humanists in the public square, we should persist in making the very best arguments that we can.

Even if you want to lay to one side the very valid concerns about the porn industry's links with human trafficking, or the connections between hard - core pornography use and sexual violence, there's a strong argument that this is, in fact, a public health issue.

I can see why it would be something that would appeal to the Libertarian fringe, though I could make a very strong Libertarian argument against the right of schools public and private to demand vaccinations before admission.

«We have a lot of very high profile, capable people who can stand in for the first minister in terms of being the public face of the party, going on television and pushing our arguments,» she added.

In particular, it is sometimes argued that (a) despite past public communication efforts, public understanding of the scientific consensus has not changed much in the last decade and hence the approach must not be very effective (i.e., «the stasis argument»)[13] and (b) because people are predisposed to engage in protective motivated reasoning (i.e., people process information consistent with their ideological worldviews), consensus - messaging is likely to be unsuccessful or could even backfire [12, 14].

If Plimer has anything new to add rather than the same old arguments that have been doing the rounds on the internet for years then he's had plenty of opportunities to make them public with the very soft treatment he's had from many in the press (Tony Jones being an honorable exception), yet it's all been the same old story.

I'll argue that if you're one of the ~ 3M persons living in the Ben Tre and Long An provinces of Vietnam situated on the Mekong Delta, unsupported claims such as Lindzen's «The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal» is hardly a tight argument and is ethically extremely dubious, aimed as it is at paralyzing the public policy response necessary to protect those people at risk.

To reiterate: with mitigation of those above cultural downsides in mind, I think the uncertainty argument in the public is very useful.

Arguments that these technologies are very unlikely to exist late this century are, I suspect, motivated by a well - intentioned belief that the only way to get rapid investment in mitigation is to convince the public that it's the only way to avoid the climate crisis.

Here, the role of the infamous public insults are now played by the blogs — but instead of a few names hurled through the papers over a very brief period, it is a never ending stream of bile, invective, accusations and poorly formed argument.

Thus, we'd be very cautious about making an essentially linear, deterministic argument about heat extremes to the public.

Thirdly, he then during question period a few days later repeated his messaging in a very public forum and again stood by his argument that few women and minorities are applying for positions on the bench so that's why the government isn't appointing them.

Emphasising that this is a «very important constitutional case», in which there were «vital public interests at stake on each side of the argument», the court formed the «clear view» that it should not «do anything which would have the effect of immediately disapplying Part 4 of the 2016 Act», with the «resultant chaos and damage to the public interest which that would undoubtedly cause» (§ 46).

But as I also said in a (friendly) critique of prof. Kerr's argument, one problem with such appeals for more evidence, especially expert evidence, is that it can be very hard to come by, especially in «ordinary» cases rather than those that are designed and litigated by specialized public - interest advocacy organizations.

«Since San Bernardino County is a public organization, the government can make a very compelling argument that the information contained on the phone is part of the public record, and we should be allowed to see it,» Oved added.