Sentences with phrase «wrong out of the argument»

Not exact matches

Mike, not me has just used your abhorrence at the idea of carrying out an act that his god specifically commands as an argument that you have instilled in you an objective sense of right and wrong... of which that same god is the source.

And if you want to try to play the «culture» argument, please point out the part of the bible where it says that slavery is right, and subjugation of women is right, but becomes wrong in 2000 years.

To dismiss their arguments out of hand without at least providing a logical reason why is wrong.

If I carry out that argument, it is not really The CHURCH that is the problem, only the people in it (and I would add the people outside of it who leave it in the hands of the wrong people).

When Samuel commented on why it was wrong to sell Lucas Perez you brought up stats between Walcott and Perez and in that you proved using the stats why Walcott is better.If Wenger didn't have blond love for some of his players then why did he keep benching Perez when he was performing yet the average guys always got a look in the squad.So if there are stats which prove Walcott is better aren't there stats which also prove Perez is better?Think about that.You also said Perez is not as good as some of us make out.The funny thing is yesterday we had an argument on Giroud and I also tried to imply that Giroud is not as good as we make out and you opposed.You always kept bringing stats up to defend him.Do you know if Bendtner or Chamakh had scored 25 goals for Arsenal in any season they'd still have been regarded as average.You know why?Because quality has nothing to do with stats and is just a kind pf talent or state.It seems to me that you think you know it all.You also denied the fact that Wenger likes French players and that if Perez was French he wouldn't have been out in one season stating other players as examples.It seems to me that you deny things which are clear for everyone to see.If you think you know better than everyone go and teach Wenger how to win the trophy this season.

(Douglad Carswell will, I am sure, believe it shows he is winning the argument): Hence «Pointing out the scale of climate scepticism among the online opinion formers on the right does not, of course, prove that they are wrong, or right.

In fairness I don't think he meant it in a development context - he'd be clearly wrong since the Washington Consensus is long dead and overwhelming evidence from Stiglitz, Ha - Joon Chang, Oxfam and others show that no country in history has lifted its people out of poverty without an active state, the infant industry arguments etc..

Forgive of if i'm wrong, but all your arguments seem to be in favour of sorting out the representative proportionality of our parliament before sorting out the mediocrity issue.

As Steven Weinberg points out here, the argument made against extremists ends up invoking a moral sense to argue that the religious ideas of the extremists are wrong, when the whole point of religion is that it should be the other way around.

But if he turns out to be wrong, he will still have collected substantial evidence to bolster his argument that Nubia deserves more respect in the annals of archaeology.

That argument has finally gone the way of the dodo because there are too many of us out there in the trenches who know just how wrong that argument is and we've been letting others know.

and fuck slavin's tuition is here to stay.someone had a spreadsheet and an argument to sell that went wrong, with the out being «well higher education isnt for free for everybody» based on a narrow read of Peter Cooper's mission (thats epstein's line).

There is a simple reason one knows that Feynman couldn't possibly have meant this argument seems to attribute to him (namely that as soon as a new experiment comes along, any model with which it disagrees must immediately be chucked out): Feynman lived to see loads and loads of wrong experiments.

Someone writes a guest post on RC and then for eternity it's a done deal and assumed «true» when it was little more than egregious incompetent SPIN more worthy of a biased politician than a couple of biased scientists obviously incapable of thinking holistically and unable to stop creating fraudulent Strawmen arguments out of thin air trying to prove they are «right» and the other is «wrong».

And, as Matt Yglesias points out, one of Dubner and Levitt's arguments rests on the (demonstrably wrong and in any case wildly irrelevant) premise that solar panels are always black.

I know the arguments that AGW causes extreme weather events (and the counter-arguments that this is wrong or alternatively essentially unprovable), but for popular consumption it's a very dangerous argument, because people are smart enough to figure out that a theory that can account for everything is unfalsifiable and unscientific, even if they've never heard of Karl Popper.

However — and I know this may be a difficult step, but give it a try just for the sake of argument — if it turns out all these scientists are right and it's you wot's wrong, and we've followed your prescription and done absolutely nothing about reducing emissions for another decade or two, then the measures we'll need to take then will be much much more expensive and economically damaging for those poor people you're lying awake at night worrying about.

It's effectively a way of getting wrong arguments out there to misinform people while maintaining plausible deniability.

You, of course, would be there to respond, pointing out his arguments are all wrong.

It's awfully sporting of you to say that I «of course, would be there to respond, pointing out his arguments are all wrong».

Often I try also to point out wrong arguments without claims about the true state of the outcome.

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.

77 Consequently, the Commission was wrong to conclude, in the contested decision, that the arguments set out in paragraph 70 above could not be examined within the framework of Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006.

The court considered submissions made on behalf of the defendant that it should now be recognised that it is wrong in law to award exemplary damages relying on the speech of Lord Scott in Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2001] UKHL 29, [2001] All ER (D) 30 (Jun), and considered the arguments for and against the award of exemplary damages put out in some detail in the Law Commission's Report on Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages (1997)(Law Com No 247).

Try to avoid any arguments before going out it will put you in the wrong mood of learning.