Sentences with phrase «argument against this point»

Not exact matches

There were several arguments against this proposal (see here and here), but the proposal itself points to a disconnect between how independent directors are paid.

Rush casts its net wide; there's a macroeconomic argument woven through the book that makes the case against taxation structures that are redistributive to the point of dampening the urge to succeed.

That's not a knock - down argument against any and all principled refusals to do business, but it's a point worth making.

Some conservatives tried to fight back against Trump, pleading with their audiences to see what they contended to be the rational point of view, but their arguments seemed to go unheard.

On this point, it's best to avoid «common knowledge» because the common arguments consumers make against refinancing can be quietly misleading.

The first argument against refinancing goes that it doesn't make sense to refinance unless you're lowering your mortgage rate by one percentage point or more.

In these instances, I try to use the US dollar's performance against gold to prove the argument that the US dollar will not have to crash in the future to prove my point because it has already crashed!

The other argument against a dual - class share structure is really just a corollary to the previous point and that is the issue that the general shareholder's voice is not heard.

The problem, for Aristophanes, is that there's no argument against incest from the point of view of pure reason that works on the individual level.

You raise a very good point that escapes most theists and that is while they argue against atheists for not believing in their god, they forget that most of those arguments could be applied to them by somebody of another religion.

My ultimate point was rather to note that morality should not be the backing point for an argument that supports, or is against, abortion.

Although the classical economists pointed this out in order to support national markets over against local ones, the argument works equally well for a global market over against national ones.

If you have arguments against the philosophy of the Church or the dogma of the religion, I can respect the difference and argue the points.

And that is the point of my argument; the standard theological version of process philosophy — Whitehead with God — leads me to ask such questions, leads me to wonder why such senseless, absurd disasters have plagued us at every step of our history, and this counts strongly against the centered version of process metaphysics.

Sherburne tends, in his argument against regional inclusion, to quote passages in which Whitehead is making the point that when the region of an actual occasion is divided the subregions correspond to its physical feelings but that these physical feelings are not actual occasions capable of independent existence.

So if you are trying to point to the «sancti.ty» of life as an argument to support being against abortion you are ignoring the «natural» death toll that God allowed to befall those before proper prenatal care came into being.

Nor do I find any other cogent arguments in Hartshorne against the attributes of the second group, though I will not be able to argue this last point in detail.

There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is true.

A major point in Kass's arguments against research cloning is that it is a classic slippery slope, allowing the development of the biological tools necessary for reproductive cloning, which is sure to happen when those tools are in place.

Here is the point: such an argument against utilitarianism stakes everything on a pre-philosophical intuition about the heinousness of murder.

In addition to the rational arguments against polytheistic worship, the Qur» an points to the unanimous testimony of the prophetic traditions.

You are trying to change my argument ---- why, cause you or Larry have no good argument against what I pointed out.

In what follows I will not attempt to answer his arguments in detail, still less to score points against him; the matters we are concerned with are too difficult and too crucial to admit of such treatment; I shall therefore merely try to indicate where and why I still venture to differ from him.

... Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.»

Poor little Chad can't answer points against his complete Straw Man arguments against evolutionary theory.

lol, yes clay i am an atheist... i created the sun whorshipping thing to have argument against religion from a religious stand point... however, the sun makes more sense then something you can't see or feel — the sun also gives free energy... your god once did that for the jews, my gives it to the human race as well as everything else on the planet, fuk even the planet is nothing without the sun... but back to your point — yes it is very hypocritical of me, AND thats the point, every religious person i have ever met has and on a constant basis broken the tenets of there faith without regard for there souls — it seems to only be the person's conscience that dictates what is right and wrong... the belief in a god figure is just because its tradition to and plus every else believes so its always to be part of the group instead of an outsider — that is sadly human nature to be part of the group.

Two philosophers from Oxford and Cambridge respectively, Simon Blackburn and Leslie Green, presented the main argument against the validity of Pope Benedict's phrase, simply pointing out that in practice very few people at present are radically relativist in all morality to the point of being anarchic and care-less of cruelty.

Let us consider what objections might be made against our argument to this point.

It is at this point that I reject the a priori arguments against the community development programs in Chicago and elsewhere.

I'm just trying to point out that basing an argument against someone based on the bible is not very convincing, due to the fact that they are quoting it to someone who has no faith in what they believer believes.

this blog is not working with me... I'll have to catch you guys on another post... it will not accept long post... This is my main point against the scientific method argument; it is consensus in the scientific community that most of our Universe is unseen.

You are quite right in pointing out that I not only make a strong case against gay marriage and against abortion but also carefully delineate the arguments from the other side.

Certainly no argument against it can be based upon the fact that every year we are able to move faster from one point to another, and to destroy more human lives with less expenditure of time and trouble.

He develops his argument against atypically atheistic Darwinism around the fact of evolutionary convergence: «The central point is that because organisms arrive repeatedly at the same biological solution... this provides not only a degree of predictability, but more intriguingly points to a deeper structure to life...» His viewpoint is quite clear: «Metric - sized animals that are the end - result of many billions of years of prior stellar and biological evolution may be the only way to allow at least one species to begin its encounter with God.

Many of the objections put forward by pro-life agencies in Britain against recent euthanasia Bills gave precedence to the «thin end of the wedge» type of argument, often pointing to Holland as a worst case example.

Try flipping the argument and ask why so called top teams drop so many points against the bottom 6 clubs?

While the recent form of the Under - 21s side might be a strong argument against that with a group of talented young players on show, the point he makes about the Italian, Spanish and French leagues providing an obvious spine of homegrown players in their respective All - Star teams is true.

Even later, after the war was done, an argument with Pozzo ahead of a friendly against communist Hungary was used to cast aspersions on his character, to the point that he was forced to write a piece headlined «I Am Not A Secret Agent.»

Reading everybody's posts and arguments for and against Wenger, Kroenke and Gazidis has at times made me laugh, cry, bitter and angry to the point of pulling out what hair i have left.

My point is, the argument against greek life should not be that you're paying for friends.

If you want to make an argument against the Angels, it would invoke the regression of Matt Shoemaker and Kole Calhoun, and it would loudly point out that the slow decline of Jered Weaver, C.J. Wilson and / or Albert Pujols is about to evolve into sudden decline.

Now, removed from Kaepernick, who is on the outside looking in, with his stance distorted by arguments cowardly trying to look away from the original issue — claiming he kneeled against things that he didn't — and with the spotlight pointed at Trump rather than police brutality, the NFL has decided to protest without really protesting anything.

but the apathy shown those two coaching decisions tends to add data points to the larger arguments against KA.

It amazes me that any educated person at this point tries to make an argument against breastfeeding.

I think it fair to say that at no point in these years have I received a single adequate reply to the arguments I have made against the Lib Dem policy.

The day after the vote the Guardian editorialised: «There's little point rehearsing the arguments against the measure.

Sheinkopf also said that, at this point, «there is no overwhelmingly violent or extraordinary incident around which people could organize or make a larger argument collectively» against de Blasio.

The assertion about the huge financial involvement in my views is in order but may not be completely correct, as the argument was not only sophistry but antithetical to building a nation devoid of corruption and goes against the global warning on corruption as succulently pointed out.

The point shouldn't be about agreement with the underlying sentiments or arguments; it should be about not wanting a politics dominated, or even significantly contributed to, by those willing to commit violence, against even property, let alone people.

I also will point out a few basic examples of how these arguments fail to absolve Israel of the claims against it.