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.