Sentences with phrase «argue against it means»

For unqualified people (and most «skeptics» are that) to argue against this means they they put their own limited knowledge and understanding against that of hundreds or thousands of experts.

Not exact matches

It's like arguing against «corporate personhood» or claiming that Barack Obama is a «socialist»: all you're doing is demonstrating to the world that you don't know what the words you're using really mean.

Here is John Carney arguing that «There's nothing about Bitcoin that means you can't have fractional reserve banking,» which is entirely correct but bear in mind that he's arguing against libertarian bitcoin supporters who view the absence of fractional reserve banking as a desirable feature of bitcoin.

Both are weighty issues that deal explicitly with «high cosmic justice,» so if he argues that a government overreaches its authority to execute justice by attempting to «balance the books of the universe» in repaying blood with blood, then does that mean there can never be any just criteria for one nation to retaliate against another after an unprovoked attack» an attack that in essence would repay blood with blood?

The means by which we produce such abundance are good: Who would argue against making human toil easier by means of machines?

7 This is in no way meant to argue against immortality and / or resurrection for everyone.

Wishful thinking of this sort is difficult to argue against, but it may be relevant to note briefly that the status of «action at a distance» is by no means so clear cut in contemporary philosophy of science as they seem to suppose.

† Christians do not really exist, they just pretend that they believe in God and argue with non-religious people while not knowing very much at all regarding Christianity or the meaning of the bible and disregarding half of what the bible says only to strongly vocalize their stance against the other half of the bible that is against things that they either do not understand or that do not affect them personally.

But a just appreciation of God's general revelation of Himself should preserve the truth that Christianity has meaning for man precisely because it represents a fulfillment of the knowledge of God which is made possible through all the things which He has made, Nygren claims, of course, simply to be setting forth scientifically the fundamental Christian motif without arguing its truth or value against any other motif.

Charles Hartshorne2 in The Logic of Perfection and Schubert Ogden3 in «The Meaning of Christian Hope» have forcefully argued against any subjective immortality, holding that as objectively experienced by God our lives are wholly preserved and cherished forever.

The glorification of violence as a means to solve conflict is everywhere in our culture and I was that lame person that couldn't stand mixed - martial - arts battles and railed against video games and movies that depicted war or crime as an adventure, even arguing we are «a generation of virtual sociopaths.»

I mean in the face of all that truth, how could anyone argue against you?

The second chapter includes a substantial discussion of Christology that argues vigorously for the author's interpretation of what Christology, including the resurrection, has meant in the past and what it might mean today, with a fair share of polemics against alternative theological views.

All I'm arguing is that this «meaning» would likely militate against the conclusion that GA221's decision was qualitatively «Reformed».

In all honesty, the «religious people» that don't legislate against things based solely on their religious convictions and thereby hurt the rights of individuals, and who don't condemn science and medicine and societal progression and other religions and other denominations and people who are not religious, and who don't claim to know that something is true beyond all other truths, are probably a very slim minority, and I'd have to argue that they aren't really religious, they are just doing whatever makes them feel good, which could be accomplished through secular means as well.

Catholic citizens have every reason — including the truth of the matter — to argue that our Constitution is much more democratic that our Court now says it is, just as they have every reason to argue that our Framers never meant «liberty» to be used as a wrecking ball deployed against our indispensable relational «intermediary» institutions — beginning with the family and the church.

Richard Rubenstein, the rabbi who wrote the book After Auschwitz, has argued that after the horrors perpetrated against the European Jews under Hitler it is no longer possible to believe in the Judeo - Christian God, for to believe in God is to believe that Auschwitz too has meaning.

I mean, 16 goals in 15 games and helping lead the team to the top of Serie A is hard to argue against.

I would argue that we defended much better as a team in the Spurs game (certainly first half) than we did against Everton, but our inability to keep the ball or sustain pressure meant that Spurs had loads of the ball and were able to pin us back in our half.

I mean technically you can argue against almost any decision, but its telling that these fans will always argue against anything seemingly favouring Arsenal.

It's this sort of thing that people use against Arsenal when it's argued that the team aren't cynical enough or don't have a hard edge to them but, frankly, if having those things means being like Diego Costa, then no thank you.

Frank Mauro, executive director emeritus of the Fiscal Policy Institute and a onetime secretary of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, argued against Proposal One, writing at the time that it would have made the state budget process «even more of a mess than it has been in many recent years.»

In the Assembly, for example, Ways and Means Chairman Herman Denny Farrell argued against it citing potential constitutional issues and questioning why it should be done now.

They argue even more against wealth taxes, as it means income can be negative if a wealthy person decides to not do any work that year (under a regular income tax, 0 income would be subject to 0 tax).

That means fishers who use store - bought shellfish as bait and consumers who toss uneaten shellfish in the water may be spreading invasive species, say the researchers, who argue that the live seafood trade needs tighter regulations to protect against this ecological threat.

November 20, 2017 • DOJ's case against the merger argues that the companies would control so much of both what people watch and how they watch it, that it could mean higher prices for both consumers and competitors.

They will point to the long - term benefits for both pupils and society, and will argue against viewing SEL as merely a means of achieving better exam results.

DOJ attorney Lawrence Buterman argued that the proposed penalties against Apple were meant to protect consumers.

Nietzsche actually argued against Nihilism - the view that nothing in life has value or meaning, and that existence is useless.

This roughly means that the great DRM - debate isn't even a top three issue for most publishers, while opponents of digital rights» management, who argue against the artificial incompatibility of an ebook across multiple devices, have shown that DRM - free books are no more likely to be pirated than those that have impose constraints on them.

You and Toby incorrectly assume that arguing against the market dropping 40 % -50 % therefore must mean I think the market will roar forward.

Some view this «training tool» as an acceptable way to curb an unwanted action by your dog; others will argue it's a horrible act of violence against our canine companions, and was designed only for those who don't want to spend the time with alternate, less invasive means of training.

It's not a point I feel inclined to argue against because it's actually quite right, yet I hold that my own view is correct, too: the Assassin's are a force which may exist within these events and exert a degree of force, but their very nature also means they are never truly a part of these events except in certain circumstances.

(Warsaw, Poland) Under the theme «degrowth», a social movement which argues against the current compulsory economic growth and favours ways of improving life quality within the natural environment, the exhibition promotes an alternative lifestyle through means and method such as recycling and green transport.

I'm basically arguing Alice's case against Humpty Dumpty, when he says he can make words mean what he likes.

Do you think Gavin Schmidt would use data to argue for or against drought without even learning the most basic facet of what the data meant?

Quite apart from the absurdity of arguing against truth in favour of being inside the teetering structure — it is a preeminent brittle structure — whether arguing high or low sensitivity — because that's what the punters want to hear — on a blog where science is meant to mean something and the policy nexus is in another room anyway.

Simulations where the magnitude of solar irradiance changes is increased yield a mismatch between model results and CO2 data, providing evidence for modest changes in solar irradiance and global mean temperatures over the past millennium and arguing against a significant amplification of the response of global or hemispheric annual mean temperature to solar forcing.

It is difficult to see how anyone can argue against it, and it provides a means to unite people from both sides of the argument.

Arguing against the model vs real world comparison «Here Judith is (I think) referring to the mismatch between the ensemble mean (red) and the observations (black) in that period... However, the observations are well within the spread of the models and so could easily be within the range of the forced trend + simulated internal variability.»

Andrew, I believe you meant to say «UAH» when you said «UHA» when describing where John Christy works in a rebuttal to the common criticism, «There are no papers on the list that argue against AGW.»

You may argue (even vehemently) against their conclusions (thought Clarke 04 citation here is not very convincing IMO) but even that would not change the fact that serious researchers now unlike 5 years ago, have findings which mean that our risk analysis de facto has changed, and claiming otherwise is not responsible journalism on RealClimate.org's part.

That means it will suggest connections not merely from among workplace colleagues or law school classmates, but also from among lawyers you argued with or against in a courtroom.

However, Mr. Kraft, the plaintiff in the underlying action, argued that the allegations of liability against Mr. Kelley fell within the policy's scope of coverage because the word «use» in the motorized vehicle exclusion should be construed as meaning «some measure of operational control over» a motorized vehicle, in this case the ATV.

Our expertise in defending companies against health and safety investigations means we can quickly identify any weaknesses in the case against you and persuasively argue for it to be dismissed or for leniency to be applied to take account of any special circumstances.

He said he will also argue that the copyright statutes used in the case were not meant to be used against individuals, but against commercial enterprises that break copyright laws.

While the secretary of state accepted that this was the case, he argued that the system taken as a whole — including the ability to bring judicial review proceedings against a refusal to remove from the provisional list — meant that the system complied with Art 6 (1), as per the principle laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in Bryan v United Kingdom (Application 19178 / 91)(1995) 21 EHRR 342.

«Bargaric and McConvill argue for an Australian Senate Judiciary Committee to consider complaints against judges Main Does «the laws of the Commonwealth» mean «a law of the Commonwealth»?»

In 2010, White Industries commenced action against the Indian government, arguing that the delay violated the guarantee of effective means of enforcing legal rights set out in the bilateral investment treaty between India and Kuwait (and applicable to the Australian investors through the «most favored nation» treatment conferred under the India - Australia treaty).

The Respondent's union asked the CSST to reconsider that decision, arguing the functional limitations resulting from the employment injury at issue made the Respondent a person with a handicap within the meaning of section 10 of the Québec Charter, he could not be discriminated against because of this handicap and that, in looking for suitable employment, the employer had to make every effort to facilitate his return to work without, however, imposing undue hardship on him.