This is utterly backward.

What sort of a judgement you impose!

How do you decide?

How do you judge?

It shows you how that proposition is connected to the axioms of the system and helps you understand why the proposition is true.

But in other cases, they're intended to help us understand the proposition and the reasons why the proposition is true.

This judgment is not limited to particular cultures.

In fact, this is partly the case.

These questions help the public to make an informed judgement.

It's hard to pass any unambiguous judgment on the situation there.

What ails you that you judge in such a wise?

What ails you then, how you judge?

What is the matter with you that you make such strange judgements?

This dictum by necessity applies across the board.

He's young, but he has judgment.

But that judgment seems premature, at best.

The purpose of argument, they say, is to establish a certain proposition. So now we have a pretty neat definition of argument.

That reasoning is familiar, but is it correct?

But you are full of the judgment of the wicked. Judgment and justice take hold of you.

But thou hast fulfilled the judgment of the wicked judgment and justice take hold on thee.

Okay.

And, maybe, here's my take on it.

And we rely on others. We rely on proxies.

I take it they mean, intended to establish a certain proposition.

That this judgment was widely shared is indicated by the admitted influence he had on younger poets.

How bad is the judgement that they make!

Very evil is the judgement they impose!

Lo'. vile is that which they judge!

Shall he keep her with dishonour or bury her in the earth? Certainly, evil is their decision.

Evil is the decision they make.

How evil is their estimate of Allah!

For you say, 'My doctrine is pure. I am clean in your eyes.'

For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes.

So how do we operationalize the question of content of character?

I inhabit another self, and I give it life for awhile, because when the self is suspended so is divisiveness and judgment.

It is easy to dismiss the suggestion that technology can save the day.

His numerous personal failings and indiscretions were never publicly judged.

But one has to study a little bit more history of physics before making the final judgment.

We charge not any soul save to its capacity. And when you speak, be just, even if it should be to a near kinsman.

We burden not any person, but that which he can bear.

We do not burden any soul beyond its capacity. And when you speak, be fair, even if it concerns a close relative.

So sometimes, arguments are intended to establish a proposition, like Monty Python said.

We will have to rely on our willpower and good judgement to guide us to a successful conclusion.

That would imply that there was room for judgement and interpretation on the part of the Commission.

And on a macro level some of the speakers have inferred that even health should be privatized.