Sentences with phrase «argument about equal»

I'm attacking the premise that this isn't an argument about equal rights, It is.

Not exact matches

The fault in your argument is your assumption that believing someone cares about you equals pride.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

This is why the Christian faith, when it is made vital in terms of the equal worth of all persons to God, is a more effective solvent of ill feeling than argument, even as a sense of sin about race prejudice is a necessary prelude to repentance and change.

A politics of fairness and equality is about both (i) making an argument across the whole of society that a fairer and more equal society is in our collective enlightened self - interest, using the arguments of Richard Wilkinson, etc on issues like crime, general well - being, and that there are benefits of fairness for those at the top too.

But these can not be purely needs - based accounts since their foundation is that they are arguments about the fair and equal distribution of autonomy.»

From this pattern, Polley's film seems to forward an argument about autobiography and documentary filmmaking: that these are plural, collaborative genres most effectively and truthfully made through a chorus of many and diverse voices, a «medley» as her other sister, Susy, describes it, each given freedom as well as equal weight.

While the graphs and statistics are necessary to their argument, I would have liked first - person accounts of life in equal and unequal societies, and interviews with researchers about their work and its implications.

Now, as Leslie Kaufman reports in The Times, there appears to be some overlap emerging between those pressing for equal time for non-evolutionary explanations for life's diversity and those demanding equal time for skeptics» arguments about the causes and significance of climate change.

-- evolution v. intelligent design) I don't have much patience with giving equal air time to opinionizings about the arguments and evidence.

Of course, one can argue about whether or not the IPCC mean CS of 3.2 C is exaggerated and about «all other things being equal», but that would be another argument.

I am still a bit puzzled about the CO2 to N2 energy transfer being equal and opposite the CO2 molecule is outnumbered 25 000 to 1 by the other molecules in the atmosphere N2 the largest then O2 and H2O so the chance of the CO2 molecule colliding with a different molecule is 25 000 to 1 the chance of another molecule colliding with a CO2 is 1 in 25 000 but the other molecules will collide with each other thus diluting the energy so I do not think the equal and opposite argument stands.

When I first found that AGW was something people argued about I was more than casually intrigued, the arguments were so passionate, I immersed myself in reading discussions and found the range of disciplines involved and seemingly, to my untutored eye, being argued with equal claim to physics, quite exhausting as I yo - yoed between one and the other, and because I would then have to see what I could find to substantiate the different claims.

In the narrower legal context, this Hayekian - Rawlsian debate usually manifests itself in arguments about whether the law should protect «negative rights,» that is, protect persons from government encroachment on their inalienable rights — like private property and free exercise of religion, or whether the law should foster «positive rights,» that is, promote the rights of people to receive tangible things like free health care or housing under the auspices of equal treatment under the law.