Sentences with phrase «arguments of others in»

Not exact matches

First, there were 125 men in one large room... The men were very considerate of each other, and I didn't hear a raised voice ever, much less an argument.

The best advice I can give you is to try to make sure that you've got some board members and other advisors (not investors) who've actually run businesses to help take your side in some of the silliest of these arguments.

However, one of the other signers of the declaration, Thomas McKean, denied the July 4th signing date and backed it up by illustrating a glaring flaw in Jefferson's, Adams», and Franklin's argument — namely, that most of the signers were not members of congress on July 4th and thus wouldn't have been there to sign it.

The suits are part of a group of at least four other cases with similar arguments in various courts around the country, and they make legal experts wary, particularly as the differences in opinion seem to indicate their destiny to go before the Supreme Court.

«Any argument they make for keeping that in would result in the same kinds of legal challenges presented by Section 3 (c), which poses the question of, «Why have people from these countries been deemed more dangerous than others?»»

In his book «The All - or - Nothing Marriage,» Eli Finkel, a psychologist at Northwestern University and a professor at the Kellogg School of Management, made a similar argument: Modern spouses look to each other for friendship, sexual fulfillment, intellectual growth — not just financial stability, like they did in years pasIn his book «The All - or - Nothing Marriage,» Eli Finkel, a psychologist at Northwestern University and a professor at the Kellogg School of Management, made a similar argument: Modern spouses look to each other for friendship, sexual fulfillment, intellectual growth — not just financial stability, like they did in years pasin years past.

In a fascinating post on The Conversation blog, Maynard makes an argument that won't surprise anyone who has read any fictional account of human's interplanetary future — colonizing other planets probably won't bring out the better angels of our nature, and any attempt to put people on Mars will require overcoming serious social and political problems, such as:

Shah's argument about «an inferior competitive landscape» makes no sense, however, although it's of a piece with other Tesla mega-bulls, such as Loup Ventures» Gene Munster, who seems to think that Tesla can basically sell 11 million cars in the US alone.

While shouting over the opinions of others may be a way to drive ratings, success in business or in life requires you to take a moment, consider why you might be wrong, and build your own argument with the counterargument in mind.

I'll leave it for others to judge the merits of this argument, but assuming it gains traction with regulators and policymakers — it was aired recently in Congressional hearings over Keystone XL — it could actually be a good thing, long term, for Canada.

His argument is basically that Canada's oil is ethically preferable to the oil produced in other places, considering especially places with serious histories of human rights violations.

All the while, these companies have made an overarching argument that they should not have to follow the kinds of laws that every other industry in the country — very much including the ones that they are disrupting — follow.

It's intellectually honest to look at the other side of any argument but especially one in which you have strong views.

The former workers» cases hinged on their argument that the companies had violated clauses of the visa law requiring employers to show that hiring H - 1B workers «will not adversely affect the working conditions» of other workers in similar jobs.

The plaintiffs» motion states that in June 14 and 15 conference calls, counsel for the three sets of plaintiffs stated that they supported coordination or consolidation, «subject to the parties» agreement that these three cases will retain their separate identities, allowing each set of plaintiffs to file separate briefs, make separate oral arguments, and independently make other litigation decisions.»

You make the classic argument that the benefits of a booming tradable sector such as oil and gas must, ipso facto, outweigh the decline in other sectors — otherwise they wouldn't be generating enough demand to result in an increase in the country's currency.

The improved liquidity argument also makes it important to avoid investing in private placement real estate investment trusts (REITs) or other similar vehicles because of the potential of «losing all their capital.»

For example, some time back HFT was blamed for higher volatility in the cattle market, even though such trading represents a smaller fraction of cattle trading than it does for other contracts, and especially since there is precious little in the way of a theoretical argument that would support such a connection.

The arguments of Adair Turner and others seem to me to depend on a notion that you are making some kind of permanent commitment with respect to future monetary policy by engaging in money - financed fiscal policy.

The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed).

For anyone interested, I summarized some of his arguments in a September 16, 2012, blog entry, in which among other things I quoted the CEO of Fortescue as saying:

They consider a range of arguments for owning gold, such as: (1) gold hedges inflation; (2) gold hedges currency decline; (3) gold is attractive when other assets are not; (4) gold is a safe haven in times of crisis; (5) gold is a de facto world currency; and, (6) central banks and investors in aggregate are still underweighting gold.

There's rarely enough nuance or context provided in these arguments because both sides of the aisle seem to portray the other side as being the enemy in the passive versus active debate.

In terms of other data, the overall tone for Europe was slightly negative, giving some weight to the argument that Europe was more exposed than the United States to the effects of weakness in emerging marketIn terms of other data, the overall tone for Europe was slightly negative, giving some weight to the argument that Europe was more exposed than the United States to the effects of weakness in emerging marketin emerging markets.

There's no question that investors have become nearly frantic in their verbal arguments about the permanence of elevated profit margins (which is something that Benjamin Graham observed at other market peaks, and warned against decades ago).

As I understand the arguments, if I save a portion of my wage or other income and keep it in my mattress or other «safe» place, I am accumulating «savings».

On the other hand, those family members have a significant financial and personal interest in the long - term success of the company and certainly have an argument for being at the table.

The argument asking weather Islam is or can be a tolerant religion where people of this faith can live side by side with Christians, Jews, Hindu's and other religions co-exist in America is on the minds of most Americans.

but in attempting to make that large number seem problematic, you actually both defeated your other argument (about its irrelevance and lack of pervasiveness) while also unintentionally pointing out the very opposite of the point you were attempting to make — the primary unity underlying a vast & varied swath of people.

Okay, here goes: You are engaging in a perceptual bias, a fallacious bit of reasoning, and you have no reasonable argument as to thinking some other species» mental idiocy to be significant in any way whatsoever beyond the mere biological curiosity of their neurological problems specific to them.

Other than that, congratulations, that was the finest example of the logical fallacy known as an «Argument from Ignorance» that I have seen in a long time.

This does not mean you are ignorant, it means your argument has built in exclusion of other explanations.

Without any evidence for, or even so much as a rational argument in support of your god, or any other god for that matter, believing they exist is patently moronic.

... well the same logic applys to god... i enjoy dropping these logic bombs on people and see how they react and hope that maybe that logic bomb will eventually set up a chain reaction in their consciousness... or maybe I am an egotistical f c k who just likes to have an unassaiable argument which with to beat others over the head with... maybe I am wrong to do so because the Human Condition is so cold and bleak in its finality that people need the cushion of god to go on with their everyday lives.

My argument in a nutshell: many of the people who argue for such a right don't simply mean a right to be free from others» interference; they mean subsidized....

Despite my general sympathy with what Dreher seeks to do in this book, I am less enthusiastic about other facets of his argument.

In the name of a higher morality, their argument went, birth control could be defended as the lesser of two evils (a position argued by the dissenter Charles Curran, among others).

Chudacoff, who throughout his book tends to introduce the theme of homosexuality with hints and surmises rather than data, counters Stott's argument with this: «More recently [actually less recently — in 1985 and 1988] other historians have discovered hints [of homosexual relations].»

Of course, to put abortion in such simple, black and white terms can be shocking to some — and many pro-abortion activists would disagree, saying that a child is not human or nor a person or does not possess rights, or some other such argument.

Worth noticing is that his public argument is about the consequences of assisted reproductive technologies, how they result in embryo killing, freezing, and other abuses.

Science, Jews, and Secular Culture By David A. Hollinger Princeton University Press, 178 pages, $ 24.95 This short and eclectic collection of essays and lectures is weakly tied together by the argument» central in some chapters, marginal in others» that science was a powerful tool in the secularization of American culture.

I can't count the number of times that we would be so frustrated with each other — because Rick and I are polar opposites in just about every way you can think of — we'd get in an argument about something, and inside would be going: «Argh, this is so hard, I do not want to be married to you — you are driving me crazy!»

Voucher programs that affect only a fraction of students do leave others behind, but that is not an argument against vouchers; it is an argument in favor of a voucher plan that is comprehensive.

In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: «If many believe so, it is so.»

In presenting an argument, I just wish that those who try to tear down the integrity of the Old Testament prophets would at least be honest, transparent, with the other point of view.

Using the most extreme analogy possible in an argument usually produces nothing productive — it only makes the other side of the debate get more defensive and inflammatory.

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.

It is in this context that the arguments of John Boswell and others are best met.

Some of these arguments are no doubt instances in which two thinkers are seeking to describe one and the same feature of reality, and in which, if one is correct, the other must be wrong.

In short, my argument was based on careful examination of the evidence of everyday experience; in other words, on philosophIn short, my argument was based on careful examination of the evidence of everyday experience; in other words, on philosophin other words, on philosophy.