Sentences with phrase «argument had found»

All that became clear to counsel in argument was that the respondent's argument had found its mark and I was greatly persuaded by it.

Not exact matches

Now, you may or may not find that to be a persuasive argument about the state of income inequality in Canada — as our own Chris MacDonald has pointed out, determining the fairness of CEO pay is more complicated than it seems.

Perhaps Facebook simply sees China's side of this argument, and has adopted their point of view in the hopes of one day finding big profits in Asia's largest market.

«We have spent billions over the past year, but in isolation, that's a discrete argument that I find interesting, but not fascinating.»

The main arguments raised against mandatory paid leave are generally that it's expensive, and also that even if employers don't have to pay the salaries of their on - leave employees themselves, it's still a burden to find someone to fill in while the employee is out.

Such over-egged warnings have cost the PM credibility, and weakened better - founded arguments about how Brexit would hit the economy.

This is pretty important, since it confirms the Liberal and NDP argument that the federal government has to find other resources to finance corporate tax cuts or deficit finance them.

As the Judge would summarize the case and after he listened to all the witnesses and heard arguments from the lawyers, I would think, he is going to find this guy guilty, and then the Judge starts talking another way and then I think ooohh he is going to find this guy not guilty...... then the Judge keeps talking and then I think, I have no idea what his finding is going to be....

Some may argue this comparison is too simplistic and «apples to oranges» but the annual terawatt hour consumption figures persist none the less, and Bitcoin costs roughly 10x more energy than CERN Meanwhile, most, if not all of us will probably find it very difficult to demonstrate a cost / utility argument in support of Bitcoin having 10x more benefit than CERN.

I find it fascinating that everyone is fixated on the «3rd world country» term and nobody seems have any objection to the rest of that statement... that is other than to say that I am delusional... no hard, factual arguments against it.

The late Isaac Asimov presented the best argument against it I've yet found, and I'll post it here.

I've found that atheists and especially atheists here regurgitate arguments put forth by Dawkins and Hitchens et al. as much as any Christian quotes the Bible.

I have never, ever, once heard anyone set forth any salient argument as to how this country is somehow founded in christian principles.

I have never found a single one of his arguments that wasn't either a logical fallacy or an obvious misuse of math.

Out of all the postings on this site today, I found «Derp's «post the most fascinating and informative, as well as deeply revealing.Even after boasting of what seems to be a practically perfect live by any measure, he informs us that he takes pleasure in mocking and ridiculing those of faith who are presumably his opposite; I can only wonder if, given all his supposed accomplishments, he is smart enough to realize how deeply revealing of his true character his remarks are.As a believer, I rarely engage in arguments with my atheist friends, and like to think I wouldn't lower myself to the level of juvenile name - calling and personal attacks against whatever my atheist friends hold dear.Most of the time we simply agree to disagree; when they hold forth with misinformation or ignorance on their assumed «knowledge «of my faith, I try to gently correct them; I certainly don't allow any disagreements we have to devolve into hateful insults and name - calling.

You called me out as being disingenuous when I said «that as time goes on however, I'm finding things that are helping to disprove things previously held as fact among Christians», so I have provided you an example that not only wasn't it a disingenuous statement, but that I've done my homework, on both sides of the argument, and came up with something that no one has been able to give me a response with even either the slightest chance of being possible, or falling back to the old status qua of «mysterious ways» and «having faith».

Holiness for me was found in the mess and labour of giving birth, in birthday parties and community pools, in the battling sweetness of breastfeeding, in the repetition of cleaning, in the step of faith it took to go back to church again, in the hours of chatting that have to precede the real heart - to - heart talks, in the yelling at my kids sometimes, in the crying in restaurants with broken hearted friends, in the uncomfortable silences at our bible study when we're all weighing whether or not to say what we really think, in the arguments inherent to staying in love with each other, in the unwelcome number on the scale, in the sounding out of vowels during bedtime book reading, in the dust and stink and heat of a tent city in Port au Prince, in the beauty of a soccer game in the Haitian dust, in the listening to someone else's story, in the telling of my own brokenness, in the repentance, in the secret telling and the secret keeping, in the suffering and the mourning, in the late nights tending sick babies, in confronting fears, in the all of a life.

I have to admit I'd read allot of the arguments (I find allot of these movement relationship dynamics fascinating from a sociological and psychological perspective as well as having endured my own share of toxic faith communities that have left me with a perverse fascination with researching what is going on).

It was easily a twenty minute argument with my sister who I found out later she hadn't been home, this thing had assumed the former of my sister and there was no way it had been my sister.

This attitude has also been held among scientists until recently, when the creationist pressures on public education and policy became so threatening that some scientists founded a new journal, Creation / Evolution, a «Committee of Correspondence» and a Creation / Evolution News letter, aimed at defending evolutionary science and dismantling creationist arguments.

This book has been my companion for eight years of Advent now, for some reason I find more solace in poetry during times of longing than in any well - delivered sermon or point - by - point systematic theology argument.

We've seen from his subsequent actions that the likelihood is that GZ felt he was some kind of vigilante plus we find out that he was still upset from an argument with his wife.

The letter is not exactly a textbook example of a well - reasoned argument or anything, but it's notable for the very fact that Seinfeld has found a cause he can get behind.

If two millennia of argument have not finished off Gnosticism, that most protean of heresies, it seems unlikely that contemporary arguments, no matter how persuasive orthodox believers may find them, will do the job with the unconverted, the skeptical, or the hostile.

Does not the constant effort to find an adequate argument indicate that those who seek it are attempting to rationalize and justify beliefs that have no rational justification?

I do find it amusing that the Piddler suddenly developed an aversion to arguing with an «elder» only when he HAD no argument.

If those who have most deeply entered into the contemporary situation find what is said dull or vacuous, it is not saved by the amount of evidence amassed for its conclusions or the tightness of its logical arguments.

One argument which has been attempted against its historicity has been that there are ancient accounts of floods to be found among other peoples; however, rather than discounting the reality of the Flood I view this as corroborative.

Many of its arguments to this effect are derived from human rights «data,» which the Administration has used in turn to justify its support for the contra rebels... [W] e find the Administration's approach to Nicaragua deceptive and harmful....

If you find Kalam Cosmological Arguments compelling, but that still requires special pleading for God not to have a «cause», which is dishonest and illogical.

No doubt there have been and are many people who have come to America simply to transplant their existing culture onto new soil — in fact, you can make the argument that that was how America was founded in the first place.

It would be interesting to know as a matter of history whether President Lincoln's desire to limit the binding force of Dred Scott ever found its way into a practical legal argument.

I have found the antipluralist arguments developed by Robert Paul Wolff, Theodore Lowi.

I personally find this to be one of the most detrimental arguments for humanity as if we instead of searching for the answer just smooth over the holes with god like some theoretical putty then we now have an answer and do not continue to search for the truth.

A developed argument about American exceptionalism and the nature of the American Founding would take us a long way toward understanding why we don't want religion to be pushed from the shared mainstream over to one side's shore.

Choosing to contrast Roman Catholicism principally with the Protestant tradition in which he was raised, he would have strengthened his argument by also addressing why he found inadequate the Episcopal church in which he spent most of his adult life.

You may not have changed the difeintion, but you are certainly NOT using the accepted definition I found on over 12 sites, including religious ones, so start with the correct definition, and you will see you causal chain argument is false.

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).

Ultimately, I've found these arguments to be pointless because you can't convince a creationist that evolution is the way to go and you can't convince an evolutionist that creation makes sense.

Reilly apparently declines my invitation to set aside the quarrel over the American founding in view of present circumstances, though I wish he had taken more care to understand my side of that argument.

Theo, If your statement in your first cause argument was: «There has been no infinite causal chain observed», then I would have to find one.

I have found myself strongly drawn to the arguments of Austin Ruse (who has written here, here, and here at Crisis), and not very much to those of Ron Belgau or Elizabeth Scalia here at FT.. But how to put it?

More substantively, his arguments would call Christians to find ways to be peacemakers even — especially — at this troubled moment.

I suspect it is» it would seem impertinent, to say the least, to argue with the founding fathers on the point» but I do want to complicate the argument just a bit.

I do not find Russell E. Saltzman's essay «Two Boats, a Helicopter, and Stem Cells» (October 1999) entirely satisfying, although I have absolutely no quarrel with the argument developed for his own decision to oppose the use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research.

I'd be willing to be that an argument took place and the closed minded Catholic boyfriend finally told her to convert or find a new boyfriend... then, like a gullable fool, she «renounces» her true beliefs to the world and dude ends up with a complacent, demure, docile woman to control like the bible tells him to.

Here's my latest list — this seems like a good spot to set this down, as nobody's posting much on this thread... ---- bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to post that wonderful argument: Many, if not most are buried within other words, but I am not shooting for the perfect list, so use your imagination and add any words I have missed as a comment (no one has done this yet)-- I found some but forgot to write them down.

Perhaps you would find courses in logical argument helpful, I'm sure there are community colleges with relaxed entrance requirements in your area.

@Ron: Through my years I have found it impossible to have a logical argument with religious people, so now I just resort to name calling.

Dearborn, plenty of atheist sites to find out there and many of them would love you to visit but you better have a good argument why your religion is real and all the others are make believe.