Sentences with phrase «argued against them because»

but you would argue against that because you want cops just «doing whats right» — which is suspect to personal feelings of right and wrong!

If no one's arguing against it because it's scraps, well then just ignore this!

«David hasn't thought through his policy and neither has Nick if he's going to argue against us because it's the right thing to do.»

He wasn't having it, using every idea in the book to argue against it because he's heard so many people repeat it.

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.

Teacher's unions argued against them because they were a measure of the teacher's ability.

Not exact matches

The billionaire argues that «it's precisely because I respect journalists that I do not believe they are endangered by fighting back against Gawker.»

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.

• Brittany Laughlin of Lattice VC argues against zero - tolerance policies because, she writes, the bar to report misconduct is currently too high, and we should give people a chance to fix their mistakes:

Prosecutors dropped the charges against a shooting suspect, Walker recalled, after his attorney argued that the identification process «was tainted» because the victim had seen the suspect's name and photos on Facebook.

In a nutshell, because it has given more ammunition to supporters of Donald Trump and other right - wing gun advocates who argue that the media is biased against their cause and uses tricks to discredit them.

Even Krugman spent years just arguing against austerity because it was impolitic to attack his own party for timidity, ignorance, and corruption.

The porn actress, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, filed suit against President Trump in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, arguing that a nondisclosure agreement about their alleged affair is invalid because Trump never actually signed it.

James Damore, a former Google engineer who was fired in August after posting a memo to an internal Google message board arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering, has filed a class action lawsuit against the company in Santa Clara Superior Court in Northern California.

However, tech industry representatives have come out against the tariffs, arguing that tariffs are an inappropriate strategy to address the legitimate problem of China's trade policies because they are likely to harm US workers and consumers.

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as «1» due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves «7» because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing Satan loves, obviously from Martin's comments because it gives haters and ignorant people ammunition to argue against God and church.

It says that 100,000 people are alive today because of the country's laws on abortion and argue that «a world which continues to pit the rights of a woman against the rights of her unborn child is not advancing human rights.»

There were objections made against these «proofs» like the one made by Kant who noted that one can not argue from finite causes to the Infinite Cause, because from the finite all one gets is the finite.

As late as the 16th century Martin Luther the «father of the Protestant Reformation» was still arguing for the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation to be dropped from the New Testament altogether because he perceived them to go against some of the doctrines he was promoting.

Many would argue against a life sentence because it is deemed cruel and inhumane.

I bring that up because it seems to be forefront when various states are arguing for or against it.

None of the essays argues against assisted suicide and euthanasia simply because killing is wrong.

In Science and the Modern World, Whitehead argues strongly against the value of pure abstraction because it leads to thinking that is detached from concrete reality and it leads to narrow specialization.

Nevertheless, because it was located within an academic department, it did little more than argue with others in that department against dualism and in favor of the relevance of scientific knowledge.

Many religious folks accept evolutionary theory because they know they can't argue against factual evidence.

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.

It is completely made up by creationist because they can't argue against micro evolution because it is continually happening right in front of them.

They do not take the time to gain a deeper understanding because they are content in their falsue understanding because they can argue against that.

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..

I know several scientists and they have a hard time arguing against any of the findings because evolution is not observable as Mr. Nye claims.

And if you reply with anything that says that Jesus is a facet or aspect or anything else of God, then you can't turn around and argue against mixing God (s)-- and the theory that Allah, or Yahweh, are other names for the same God, because you've already by < definition argued that God can have multiple aspects — why just the three names for them from Trinity theology?

I know John 14:6 is the «go - to» verse in order to argue against this, but the Gospel of John could have easily been wiped from the slate - again, it is because Irenaeus chose to include it that Christians embrace it word for word.

You both have argued against me in anything I have said here and it's demeaning to other who wish to post in these because of «internet trolls» like you two who attack them for a comment or statement.

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.»

A number of analysts, anticipating the need to soften the blow against the Democrats, began arguing in October that the 2010 election was about generalized anger directed at incumbents because of economic conditions.

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.

«A post about child sponsorship isn't going to be followed by hundreds of comments and thousands of shares because no one's going to argue against it.

He argued doggedly against «democratism,» the idea that majorities are always right, because he believed that democracy was the characteristically modern form of political idolatry, based on a flattery of fallen human nature.

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

«Anyone who is arguing against [support] for a particular group or subset because it's exclusive is also arguing for an end for any support from this council to any ethnic groups.»

There is a certain poignancy to this comment, because it can be argued that Kramer's lifelong battle against politicized intellectuals has shaped — and therefore limited — his own career.

Those who argue against God are doing it out of ignorance (not malice I hope because to go there is indeed exceedingly dangerous).

If all you've argued against was incorrect, it sounds like this idea scares you a bit, because you can't use your usual hammer.

I do not believe Darwin proved Genesis wrong, because it seems to me he did not understand it well enough to argue against it.

Daly and Cobb (1989), as well as Eckersley, argue against free trade as it exists in the world today between national economies, because at present free trade destroys existing national and sub-national communities in the name of a mythical world community.

After the allegations against Bishop Finn's surfaced, a number of conservative Catholics rallied to his defense, arguing that he was being unjustly persecuted, not least because he was «orthodox.»

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.

For, he argued, «An Act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.»

Benbrook and Mellon argued against genetically modified food because they say the technology hasn't done what it promised over the past two decades, it has not been determined if there are long - term health risks, weeds are becoming resistant to Bt and requiring the use of more herbicides and biotechnology can't prove it will solve the world's hunger crisis.