Sentences with phrase «argument about when»

There's an ongoing argument about when a phone becomes a tablet or a tablet becomes a phone.

There was a lot of argument about when crossover would come, when the Tories would retake the lead, pollsters publicly saying maybe that would come in January this year or Easter.

Hillary Clinton faced criticism from both sides of the abortion debate after she waded into the fraught argument about when life begins by describing the unborn as a «person.»

It started off as a rather routine argument about when it would be ok to start hanging out with his friends more when we came up with a revolutionary idea.

If that is the case, arguments about when titles were first used of Jesus may be of only limited significance.

When arguments about when Jesus will return or whether or not people can speak in tongues today keep us from working together for the gospel, our creeds have killed the church.

I have become a little bit of a librarian in my immediate family, able to sort out arguments about when somebody's birthday is or when a bill came in, for example.

Not exact matches

If we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not, and particularly in an age of social media when so many people are getting their information in sound bites and off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems.

When I ask van Beurden about that argument, he calls it «a red herring,» saying Shell would decarbonize its portfolio to avoid any chance of stranded assets.

With the reports» release, arguments among Israeli lawmakers over what the cabinet knew about the tunnels, and when it was briefed on the threat, are sure to only increase.

But it appears to be relying in part on an argument from ignorance, since one of its arguments is that not enough is known yet about how diluted bitumen might behave when spilled in the marine environment.

This book uses a ratio of about one part storytelling to three parts reason, argument and logic, which is roughly the amount of storytelling you should be aiming for when communicating with your people.

When I showed Nick Rowe my holiday pictures and told him about the canal, his first reaction was «this is an argument for discounting future returns»

However, rank manipulation is only a secondary motivation when you're using links to support your arguments or cite facts — as long as your content quality is in check, you shouldn't have to worry about a penalty.

To claim that NAFTA has created jobs is fine but the problem with that argument, especially when talking about automotive manufacturing that went to Mexico, is that those jobs would have also been created in the US if that auto manufacturing had been built here in the US.

Instead, when you make this argument to people about Singapore, lots of people go, «Oh, but it's a small island Asian country,» they start saying, «But, you shouldn't look at it,» and I'm like, «Really?

Using the argument of neutrality is too dismissive to the more pertinent fact at hand — likely about $ 300k was deployed to control $ 1.6 m, to be used in any way shape or form when it is all said and done... retiring abroad, funding their kids college, starting their tube meat meat truck business after they get tired of the lawyering rat race, etc etc..

This fact should give us pause when we consider arguments about the end of white America.

Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at conception, or over the proper structure of the family.

Here's the penultimate paragraph: Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at....

Thats why anger shouldn't be our default, especially when it comes to trivial arguments on social media and debates about news stories that don't even effect us directly.

When I suggested that he was grievously mistaken, he responded, as he had to Woodward's doubts about his stance on abortion, not so much by refuting the argument as by rebuffing the individual who had the gall to question his wisdom.

And this exchange, totally imaginable — perhaps some version of it has occurred in these very United States, between people who couldn't tell John Roberts from the Dread Pirate Roberts — must, when it occurs between two private parties, quickly devolve into an argument about whose need trumps whose: the couple's need for the florist's services, or the florist's need to obey his conscience.

When I have discussions about the Bible with people who have different views than I do, my number one goal with them is not to win the argument, but to win another discussion.

Noreen, 50, was the first woman to be sentenced to death under Pakistan's blasphemy laws when she received the punishment in November 2010, after allegedly making derogatory comments about the Prophet Muhammad during an argument with a Muslim woman.

«My BELIEF is that people reject God», Funny that L4H talks about twisting of facts when she begins the argument with a statement based on personal opinion.

I haven't heard that argument used for movies since the early days of pornography when hard - core pictures were preceded by a warning from a man wearing a doctor's smock about the terrible things viewers were about to witness.

I have wondered about all of the arguments about the Church doing our thinking when there is no Church requirement to carry a card identifying yourself as a Catholic, no requirement to give money or do anything other than love God and travel as well as you can on your journey to heaven.

«Lewis wrote in a time when, among the educated British public if not among their professional philosophers, there was considerably more agreement than there is now about what constitutes a valid and rational argument for a given case.»

When Tom Derr made him a gift of my book, Richard twitted me in print for an argument I had made about the logic of «supererogatory acts,» acts beyond the call of duty.

So if one person is thinking only about the parts of the gospel that tell a person how to go to heaven when they die or receive eternal life (faith alone in Christ alone), while another person is thinking about the parts of the gospel which tell followers of Jesus how to live on this earth (discipleship, obedience, faithful living), but both persons keep using the term «gospel,» the argument quickly becomes quite messy.

When I saw this video of Fox News» Megyn Kelly taking on two men in a heated argument about stereotyping women, it only confirmed to me that beneath all the layers of reasoning there resides a deep - seated, gut - level emotional conviction that women must fulfill their stereotypical roles.

It is the problematic character of this step which makes the ontological argument unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence although in the case of Hartshorne himself it was perhaps taken, implicitly if not explicitly, when, as he tells us, «about the age of seventeen, after reading Emerson's Essays, I made up my mind (doubtless with a somewhat hazy notion of what I was doing) to trust reason to the end» (LP viii).

If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus» existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts).

When people use this argument they are saying is that atheists must know everything there is to know about the universe before we can determine that their God is not included in that universe.

Kent, you babbled» «It amazes me that you'll believe the liars of this world that care less about your soul, but when Christians that actually read His truth tell you what He wants, you go into circular arguments that proves that you can talk / type but does nothing for loving and following Jesus.»

There was another time when another leader in the church came up to me aggressively and had an out and out argument in front of everyone about me being «corrective» with comments with him on facebook.

It amazes me that you'll believe the liars of this world that care less about your soul, but when Christians that actually read His truth tell you what He wants, you go into circular arguments that proves that you can talk / type but does nothing for loving and following Jesus.

But when we start caring more about winning arguments than loving others, something has gone terribly wrong.

I find it interesting that the three people who responded to me all brought up an argument about Muslims when I didn't even mention Muslims.

It would be better if he were to keep religion out of political discussion, especially when it comes to an argument between RC and Protestant about who is the most Satanic.

But clearly that argument would not enjoy consensus — the disagreement about when human life begins is too great.

When it comes to actual practice, we may depart from this standard rather markedly, but there is little argument about the principle.

Let me tell ya, for every one argument or «crying» as you put it, there are 1000 times when religious people cry about this or that.

One of the arguments that the «Christian nationalists» always make is that the country was founded on Christian principles, when in fact many of the founders held beliefs that were about as far from any Christian orthodoxy as you could safely be back in those days.

When you do point out «logical fallacy» in my arguments, there is always something to say about them.

For those of you who make the argument about «reason» you really have no foundation when it comes to religion.

Why wrestle with the substance of their argument when it's so much easier to just sigh about «kids these days» and be done with it?

But this enlightening article from a German writer about how Americans are far too timid when confronting prejudice — «at the dinner table, I've noticed, what Germans call a discussion, Americans call an argument» — reminds us that this fear of confrontation is exactly what preserves the status quo, often with disastrous consequences.

I have a strong disliking for the argument being made about social priveliges with being male when It is made in response to concerns raised about mistreatment of men by woman.