Sentences with phrase «argue from what»

When men argue, they tend to argue from what they consider to be a logical position.

Logically, it makes more sense to argue from what actually exists today to what might have existed in the past, than to argue from what might have existed in the past to what certainly existed in the past.

They're arguing from what they have been educated to think is real basics, but which has been deliberately created to dumb them down.

Not exact matches

Acuff argues that what prevents people from completing goals isn't a lack of effort but the desire for perfection.

Nike's having its #MeToo moment — and it illustrates plainly what's still missing from our discussion of sexual harassment in the workplace, Elizabeth C. Tippett argues in The Conversation.

«I think to the extent that Cohen argues this was about keeping the information from Melania, then what Melania knew and when she knew it will certainly be relevant,» he continued, adding that he wants to see Cohen, Trump, Daniels, and Melania all be deposed.

In that context, America's belated push to stop the trade free - loaders looks like a convenient pretext to argue that only a united Europe — around France and Germany, of course — can protect the continent's vital economic interests from what Paris and Berlin see as American protectionism and China's predatory trade practices.

You could argue it provides a better ecosystem because it's open and all of us are building on what's already there, so there are definitely some advantages from a pricing and capability perspective.

But «what we have to do every so often,» she argued, is to «save capitalism from itself.

Many people argue about what needs to come first in order to create an entrepreneurial community — ideas or capital — but it's a chicken - and - egg debate, says Brad Whitehead, president of the Fund For Our Economic Future, a program that pools funding for entrepreneurs from various philanthropic organizations across Northeast Ohio.

But despite the equity marathon, the strategist remains bullish, arguing that the markets have a good handle on what to expect from the Federal Reserve going forward.

What was missing from the debate, Thiel argues, was the recognition that with technological advances, «you could have more security with fewer privacy violations.»

The New Democrats have repeatedly attacked what they deride as a «fire sale» of valuable assets, arguing it's irresponsible to count revenue from such sales before they've happened and suggesting the estimates themselves are unrealistic.

I've been in meetings where people from the same online marketing staffs argue over everything from what to name their links pages to whether or not to kill them off completely.

Stamos, who joined Facebook from Yahoo in 2015, over the weekend tweeted and then deleted an explanation of what happened with Cambridge Analytica and argued against characterizing it as a «breach.»

The young investors who are looking to enter the market would likely be cheered by investors, who have long argued that millennials should get over what some have described as an aversion to equities — a byproduct of their coming of age and starting their careers during the worst of the financial crisis — and take advantage of a long - term, buy - and - hold strategy that allows them to benefit from compound interest.

Some would argue, that for the 2.5 % fee you are getting financial / tax advice from professionals, and that is fine as long as you understand what fees you are paying.

In a world filled with numerous online travel agency startups, I'd argue that a strategic marketing plan is what helped set us apart from the others.

And as for everyone arguing that we're suffering from «Dutch disease», just ask Ontario's manufacturing sector what's actually screwing them: exchange rates, OR fundamental flaws in our one - customer, tied - to - the - US economy manufacturing base?

«The company has yet to present a convincing argument on what synergies can come from the merger», a lawyer for Elliott argued.

It has something to do with acknowledging that, in its very essence, all reasoning involves a venture of trust in an original orientation of truth to the mind and of the mind to truth, and in the ultimate unity of the two; and that, therefore, any attempt to argue from rational premises to rational conclusions that resolutely refuses to invoke what is and has always been revealed — in the mind's most primordial encounter with reality — is not really a process of reasoning at all, but a journey toward absurdity.

But anyways... I just realized that he was arguing from his understanding of a mean, vengeful God and, all of the sudden, I just didn't care so much what he thought.

(2) Argue from your own personal [mystical] experience, tell them what «God» is really like (3) Confront all God talk: disempower both their and your own bullshit

What he was arguing was that someone can't «decide» to morph from a good person into a bad person, because there's a firewall within our personalities that makes this impossible.

If you want a demonstration please feel free to argue with a believer from one of those other groups that what they believe in isn't real, that it's all in THEIR heads.

The movie served to give me a different platform to discuss faith from, not to argue that my belief system is right and someone else's is wrong, but instead to point out that the world is hungry for questions about the soul and what we don't see right in front of us.

To that assessment this essay will contribute modestly by arguing (1) that an account of experience must be compatible with the fact that there is no one thing which is what experience is or is the essence of experience, (2) that no philosophically adequate account of what experience is can be established merely by appeal to direct, personal, intuitive experience of one's own experience, (3) that generalization from features found in human experience is not sufficient to justify the claim that temporality is essential to experience, but (4) that dialectical argument rather than intuition or generalization is necessary to support the claim that experience is essentially temporal.

One could argue that this had religious advantages from a Christian point of view, since it emphasized what God is doing here and now in and with us rather than locating God's action in the distant past.

What you do is argue from authority with endless quotes from «professors».

Those who want to argue your position from 1 John 3 often forget what John has already stated in 1 John 1 about how all of us still sin all the time.

Arguing about why shit happens only diverts time and energy away from the thing all people of good will, regardless of their faith or nonfaith, should be concerned with, the thing all of us have some control over: what happens after shit happens.

First, Plato argues that, instead of focusing on disputes about which virtues are the needful ones and how they are to be distinguished one from another, it is more important and fruitful to attend to what they have in common and inquire into what Virtue is in itself — the essence of virtue.

When your friends argue politics, do you prohibit them from expanding their respective philosophies beyond what your 2002 World Book Encyclopedia describes as that of a Democrat, or Republican?

Yes, we disagree on what his mission was, or what it all means from a cosmological perspective, but that doesn't mean we have to argue about those points.

But he went much further, arguing that Christian philosophy, like that of Aristotle, should be empirical: it should proceed from what can be grasped by the senses — and not, as the Augustinian tradition held, by what can be grasped purely by the Mind.

Adele and Peter Walker (at Emerging Christian blog) will attempt to put Rollins» words into practice through a cooperative blog series about what it means to argue from weakness.

It is not, as James Hester argues, a digression from the narrative that brings the reader back to the conflict that might have gotten lost in the irenic settlement of 2.9 - 10.33 The conflict is a negative illustration following what has up to this point been a positive illustration of unity in the circumcision free gospel.

I argued that the humanity of the Crucified Jesus as the foretaste and criterion of being truly human, would be a much better and more understandable and acceptable Christian contribution to common inter-religious-ideological search for world community because the movements of renaissance in most religions and rethinking in most secular ideologies were the results of the impact of what we know of the life and death of the historical person of Jesus or of human values from it.

There are so many more concrete points to argue without resorting to who stole what from whom.

As I have argued in these pages and elsewhere, the «presumption,» by detaching the just war way of thinking from its proper political context» the right use of sovereign public authority toward the end of tranquillitas ordinis, or peace» tends to invert the structure of classic just war analysis and turn it into a thin casuistry, giving priority consideration to necessarily contingent in bello judgments (proportionality of means, discrimination or noncombatant immunity) over what were always understood to be the prior ad bellum questions («prior» in that, inter alia, we can have a greater degree of moral clarity about them).

This second point is important because the two issues are usually treated separately» as if what one argued about relations between members of the same sex was quite different from what one might argue about relations between people of different sexes.

I know some argue that most or all of the people the New Testament calls demonized were actually suffering from what we recognize today as medical ailments, but then you have to explain why some demonized people had super powers and you have to explain the suicidal pigs.

So I wish to make it very clear I am going to ask a questions to LEARN not to argue: What does the story of the Isrealites and the manna from heaven mean to you personally, as a «conservative» Christian?

Tiggy... I wd agree and there are others from Paul... so, it begs the question: Are we really sure that we know what Paul was arguing in his letters about the Law?

I argue, on the contrary, that it is we, not God, who must act to produce values from some of which we can not benefit ourselves, since we may not survive to know these values or, being incurably more or less ignorant, may not know the results of our actions, whereas God will survive and know what results from no matter whose actions.

In fact, it can be argued (and I will, in what follows below) that the present divergences in social thought throughout contemporary evangelicalism stem largely from this source from differing theological traditions that provide conflicting models for social ethics today.

He holds otherwise: «Successful natural - law arguments are those that argue from a particular vision of what human life is supposed to be in full development.»

Successful natural - law arguments are those that argue from a particular vision of what human life is supposed to be in full development.

The literalists argue that it's belief in something from nothing, when that's exactly what Adam and Eve is, and what God is.

[10] It is not clear whether he thinks the soul is just a myth, but one would hardly think that Aristotle was writing about a mythical concept of the soul in his De Anima, since he argues for the soul quite scientifically: what distinguishes all living from all non-living things in the world we see must be some primary principle of life which he says is the soul.