Sentences with phrase «with false arguments»

So when we witness our fellow humans fighting back with false arguments or taking flight from reality in order to cope with the gravity of this Earth - shattering news, we can recognize and even empathize with the response, after all, global warming is scary stuff.

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).

Not exact matches

«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.»

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.

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.

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.

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.

The basic argument to the book is that the Catholic Pope will be the false prophet of the anti-Christ, Catholicism will be the one world religion of the anti-Christ, and that the Catholic church, in cooperation with worldly governments, has duped Christians into meeting on Sunday rather than on Saturday.

And in their covetousness (lust, greed) they will exploit you with false (cunning) arguments.

Francis said: «The strategy of this skilled «Father of Lies» is precisely mimicry, that sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments.»

In his famous interview, Danielou warned against such arguments, saying that «with the pretext of reacting against formalism» there has arisen a «false conception of freedom that brings with it the devaluing of the constitutions and rules and exalts spontaneity and improvisation» and an «erroneous conception of the changing of man and of the Church.»

Natural law arguments undermine this false equation of progressive prejudice with reason itself.

(Again false as just illustrated above and again attacking me personally rather than my argument) None of these have anything to do with the point of discussion in this thread.

Also, I agree with James Scott's arguments that everyday acts of resistance — «foot dragging, dissimulation, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander, arson [and] sabotage — are reflections of a «prosaic but constant struggle» over «autonomy» (Scott).

Both agencies acted with official city and state misconduct, and in both cases, honest, credible evidence was repeatedly dismissed and ignored, and so was the corruption that remains to date — where knowingly false statements were made to discredit me (then later completely reversed during oral argument by my accusers), and both the DOI investigators (who appeared at my doorstep many times to collect evidence) and MTA Office of the Inspector General investigators invited me back to their headquarters (more than six times), from 1989 to 2008), and continued to take no action to restore and reinstate my city job, pension and social security contributions.

This will mean more social homes every year from 2015 to 2018 than in any year under Labour, and the argument that spending less can not go along with better outcomes is yet again shown to be false.

Included within this teacher PPT are 27 starters to revise high frequency vocabulary, grammar and essential exam topics ⁃ 2 false friend activities ⁃ Opposites match up ⁃ Gap fill - nouns in German ⁃ Dominoes - adjectives ⁃ Match up - negative expressions ⁃ Categorisation of irregular verbs in 6 tenses ⁃ Unscramble letters - reflexive verbs ⁃ Reading comprehension - leisure ⁃ Gap fill - possessive pronouns ⁃ Writing - house and home ⁃ Writing - free time ⁃ Categorisation - adjectives to describe personality ⁃ Town or countryside - arguments for and against ⁃ Ideal town conditional writing frame ⁃ Sentence match - directions ⁃ Reading comprehension - school timetable ⁃ Crossword - higher numbers ⁃ Writing / speaking - common questions with numbers ⁃ Writing - times ⁃ Word search - time phrases ⁃ Match up - question words ⁃ Word unscramble - restaurant vocabulary ⁃ Common questions ⁃ Opinion adjectives - fill in the missing vowels ⁃ Opinions - past, present or future?

«The second problem,» Murray continues, «with the argument that education can be vastly improved is the false assumption that educators already know how to educate everyone and that they just need to try harder — the assumption that prompted No Child Left Behind.

I'll say that, and it disarms them, and they may say, «I had an argument with my mom this morning, and I'm feeling...» I like to take that approach because, at the end of the day, I know the real student versus a false personality.

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.

The essential problem with the UTLA study is that it is designed to bolster a false argument — that charter schools are siphoning money from traditional public schools.

Colbert revealed what a lot of the populace already knew: that the causes for war were trumped up, and the administration was colluding with policy circles in Washington, D.C., and the mainstream media to prop up false arguments for the status quo.

Echoing arguments made last month in the pages of the Hill by Schott Foundation President John Jackson, Judith Browne Dianis of the Advancement Project and wishy - washy education professor Pedro Noguera, Journey for Justice declares with no evidence that testing and accountability has somehow harmed poor and minority kids as well as supposedly «narrowed curriculum» (an argument that has been proven false by research from the likes of the U.S. Department of Education and Quadrant Arts Education Research's Robert Morrison).

Through diligent research, Restall presents readers with a fascinating view of Montezuma, mounting a convincing argument that Cortés» self - serving accounts and the traditional narrative are almost surely false.

Again, Amazon is focusing on just the big bestselling authors to make a simplified and false price argument that has almost nothing to do with their actual contract dispute with Hachette.

The argument for natural variability is based on a false premise, that the world's environment of today was the same as lets say the year 1535, with a small exception of 6 billion people and hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines constantly belching out fumes in the air we breathe.

We show that although scientists are trained in dealing with uncertainty, there are several psychological and cognitive reasons why scientists may nevertheless be susceptible to uncertainty - based argumentation, even when scientists recognize those arguments as false and are actively rebutting them.

I agree with the linearity argument and have never said otherwise (despite your repeated false claims to the contrary).

in the same thread creating a false illusion about the number of people who agree with his arguments.

He paid no attention to my points, made strawman arguments based on putting words in my mouth that I had not said, made blatantly false claims about my climate analyses, failed to distinguish the different notions of climate sensitivity, and misrepresented Arrhenius, Let me illustrate with the following dozen -LRB-!)

What do you call someone who opens a blog post with a false accusation, segues into an unfounded generalization, slams credible scientists without justification, cites research out of context, and picks apart an argument no one ever made — all, apparently, to keep his fragile ideological worldview intact, even at the expense of the global economy?

Often these arguments are accompanied with the false narrative that our scientific understanding of climate change is like a house of cards — remove one card and the whole edifice topples down.

I have been trying to convince scientists that this site presents a level playing field where the true balance of science can emerge, and I've been rebuffed with the idea that this site is another example of «false balance», wherein the politically structured arguments will again take precedence.

Creationists attack evolution by false arguments with not data except its just to complex to have evolved.

What we see operating in Hickman's thinking is the tendency to turn the climate debate into sides, or binary, opposing categories: true and false, good and bad, ideology and science... because ultimately, it's easier to lump «policy sceptics» in with «climate sceptics», and link climate sceptics to «ideology» than it is to deal with the arguments in currency.

Kim Cobb begins her arguments with the following false scientific claims about what people believe:

Before that I thought that he is here to learn something, but after that argument and with later evidence I have concluded that it was a false hope.

The other chain of arguments starts with equations (32), (33), and (34) and this is the thread that's totally false.

We often argue on this site that one of the main problems with environmentalists» arguments is that they treat nuanced and complex, and highly context - sensitive scientific claims as through they could be reduced to «true / false» axioms, meaning that error cascades through their own argument.

The rubbish argument which I contrast with that claim is the argument that because A predicts E, and E occured, therefore not B; where A is the theory AGW is false, and B is the theory AGW is true.

In that sense, «dueling» is a false metaphor, but it will be interesting to know how both arguments resonate with the readership of WIREs Climate Change.

The point of all this is that Alexi's assertion, «I have proven to you with layman numbers that you have no data of adequate quality from past proxies, therefore your argument is false, and can not be used», is false.

But untill then I have to go and stick the end back on my hockey stick, it seem to have fallen off, Once again I will take on false research in the fields I know such as DV and firearms control in any forum I am allowed access to because I know my arguments will win with an unbiased audience, I have seldom seem anyone run away from a fight unless they expect to lose and the way the media has changed recently with even Comrage Kevin dropping ACC or whatever we call it now, I think somebody is expecting to lose.

But the Court rejected that argument, noting that the cases where it has upheld laws limiting false speech dealt with «defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement»:

The arguments presented teeter on a false premise: you describe the only possible justifications for imprisonment as, on the one hand, «because it makes us feel good» and, on the other hand, deterrence — presented with those false alternatives, it's hardly a surprise that we end up on a road which leads to an argument for less imprisonment.

You may recognize something from a debate (either something they said or something you said) with a client, friend or opposing counsel: a straw man argument; appeal to hypocrisy; a false dilemma; some slippery slope reasoning; composition and division; or, everyone's favourite, the «No True Scotsman» fallacy.

With «mere postings», for example, both of the aforesaid key elements have essentially been removed or neutralized — yet an argument was still made for this false product.