Sentences with phrase «argue against it so»

And it's why its opponents argue against it so strongly.

As someone who constantly argues against so many modern videogame practices I should take a more critical stance in my reviews and to a degree that's something I'm working toward doing, but it requires essentially altering a large chunk of personality and in doing so presents a concern that it could quite badly impact my own personal enjoyment of games.

I have argued against that so many times there that I have to figure out something new to say before I comment there.

There's a fair share of this latter phenomenon on the anti-ABS side as well, people arguing against it so convinced of their position that one wonders whether they are motivated their own pocket - book and lawyers» current «monopoly» of ownership.

Not exact matches

They argued that the only reason women wanted to «mother» and keep house in the community was because they were so bad at such things at home - that municipal housekeeping was only a movement against domestic housekeeping.

The lawsuit filed against Facebook on behalf of the communications workers argues that the company essentially plays the role of an employment agency — collecting and providing data that helps employers locate candidates, effectively coordinating with the employer to develop the advertising strategies, informing employers about the performance of the ads, and so forth.

But we argue that the underlying social purpose of such Jubilees — to keep debt within the reasonable ability to be paid without social and economic polarisation — could be recreated via alternative mechanisms, and we discuss the politico - economic arguments for, and against, doing so.

So, political considerations argued against a rate hike.

It is such intellectual dishonest that is so pervasive among many believers I argue against.

Yes, Hindu thinkers such as the first Hindu missionary to America Swami Vivekananda have argued against caste, and the Indian Constitution outlawed caste - based discrimination, but the caste system, both ancient and religious, will not be swatted away so easily by either reformers or legislators.

It is the presupposition of linguistic communication and so even to argue against it is to exemplify it.

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?

Along the way, Mattes argues strenuously against all easy reductions of the doctrine: It is, he insists, the critical feature of Christian theology, and so it must not be compromised by programs of ecumenism or ethics.

Maudoodi entered the lists against the Muslim wing of the Indian National Congress by writing a book on Muslims and the Present Political Struggle, in which he argued so forcefully against the stand taken by the Muslim Congress that the Muslim Leaguers hoped he would come over to support the Pakistan movement.

The third option that, again, he argues against most vigorously is the so - called Intelligent - Design proposal.

So this would seem to argue against the «pre-Tribulation» view of the rapture.

I wish someone had told that to the Reformers, some of whom were burned for translating the Bible into their native languages so people could read it, who argued for salvation by grace against a salvation by works Gospel, who argued for Jesus as the son of God, uncreated, instead of just one among many of «God's» created beings.

So again, I urge you, if you want to argue against Christian theology, that is fine, but first learn what Christians actually believe and teach.

One thing is certain: his interpretation is difficult to argue against, not because it is obviously correct, but because his interpretation is so heavily dependent upon a kind of argument from similitude whose value is difficult to assess.

The academic nullifiers and insurrectionists with whom Wills seems to have the least patience are, to be sure, arguing against strictly expert, elite and wholly delegative government, but they have done so on behalf of a full measure of amateur, popular and participatory government.

Baker holds that Mays» interpretation is difficult to argue against, not because it is obviously incorrect, but because it is so heavily dependent upon a kind of argument from similitude whose value is difficult to assess..

So, in conclusion, us born again followers of Jesus Christ should not argue against each other but rather try and listen to our fellow siblings in Christ.

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.

It's relieving to see some sarcastic humor once in awhile against people who so vehemently argue their opinions.

Against this he argues that a beginning of time is self - contradictory.14 Be this last point as it may, the doctrine need not be so construed.

So in this context, religion can be a vehicle for evil but it would be easy to argue against it being the primary vehicle for evil.

Which is why athiests argue so hard against Creation.

But even without religious beliefs, we'd still not all agree on things like that, so here's a more practical reason to argue against religion:

In arguing against the possibility of attaining to a neutral standpoint on matters of concern to religious persons, one begins with the axiom that all human activity — and so, by extension, all scholarly activity, all religious activity, and all interaction among serious religious persons — both implies and evinces a commitment to some particular metaphysic, some view as to the way things are and as to how human activity should proceed in that context.

But the argument is constructed so that it is difficult to argue against.

Dowd's argument against the teleology of marriage is equivalent to someone arguing that, «well, my car won't start» either because it broke down, or, heck, maybe because I yanked the spark plugs» so cars must not be for traveling.»

Supporters of a change in the current DOD policy argue that just as blacks and women experienced discrimination in the past, so too are homosexuals discriminated against today by being excluded from military service.

The book was so well argued that it is still widely credited, even by non-believers, for successfully rebutting this particular charge against God's existence.

It is so sad that so many atheists will spend most of their lives fighting and arguing against the very thing that can save them, only to die and go to hell and then to spend eternity regretting the fact that they wasted all of their time arguing about it rather than just accepting it, rather than just believing, and a belief that could have saved them.

So, how do you propose one would argue against the absurdity of the Southern Bap leaders encouraging followers to continue discrimination and bigotry?

You can't seem to argue against solid concepts, so you build a caricature that you can attack.

When he developed the objectivist epistemology that encompassed the first part of Leviathan, when he argued, contrary to all the ancients, that nature «dissociates,» he did so, against the background of civil war, primarily to secure a rational foundation for politics so that such wars could be avoided in the future.

So then all the Christians constantly arguing against gays are actually suppressing the fact they know being gay is normal and they should be allowed to marry.

You can not argue against this — Because you say so?

I am so tired of people who, when I comment or argue against their viewpoint, claim that my reasoning or born out of fear.

The influence of these older evolutionary cosmologies on Whitehead's thought, moreover, is never carefully examined so much as it is presupposed.1 Against such presuppositions, I shall argue here that evolution and evolutionist theories play no significant role in Whitehead's metaphysics, and that there is no evidence in his major works of any significant influence from earlier process - oriented «evolutionary cosmologies.»

And yes, even the so - called «heretics» argued for the «inspiration of Scripture» against those who disagreed with them.

Those inclined to argue that Jesus now would advise us precisely the opposite of what he did in the New Testament — this on the basis that, regarding both tax demands and military activity, our U.S. Caesar is so much worse than his Roman one was — these people should be warned against reading Martin Hengel's little book Victory Over Violence.

I am not saying that atheists will simply become theists if we present a Jesus - like God to them, but at least doing so will give them less ammunition to argue against Christianity.

Leibniz had also argued against most seventeenth - century thinkers, that whatever is purely inert, and without any capacity to act, is nothing, so that the source of the action of all things is intrinsic to them.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

So, you don't think the defense did enough to win, and those arguing against think the defense did.

It seems a bit more than a coincidence that Crooks has just gone with the two players that scored against Huddersfield, but it was a vital win for the Eagles in the battle at the bottom of the Premier League table and so perhaps it can't be argued too much.

It seems we completely nullified them — no one has dared to play like that against them and we pulled it off, whole team working so hard and kicking their butts... Oh and yesterday some were arguing to send primavera and focus on goatfuckers, lol.

so i'd play a cautious first half (this argues against Pod bc of his defensive lapses) combined with quick infrequent counterattacks (roz / ox at LW, sanchez at CF bc we need someone who takes his chances, caz nailed on at CAM, theo to start at RW for first 60 min)