Sentences with phrase «arguments were made when»

He says the same arguments were made when the CPP was introduced in the 1960s, insisting «they were wrong then and are wrong now.»

We take heart in knowing that identical arguments were made when large - scale clinical trials were introduced in medicine after World War II — a time when medicine was seen as more an art than a science, much as education is today.

The same argument was made when african americans started playing white student in sports.

@godfreenow In logic, an argument is made when a claim is supported by a set of premises, which both support the other one.

Not exact matches

There's an argument to be made that going so far so fast could kill the goose that lays the golden egg, destroying jobs at a time when more are desperately needed, particularly for the young.

First, make sure the «when in Rome» argument isn't just being used as a fig leaf to cover up what is really an appeal to convenience.

Those expectations should be communicated to the client so that when a decision is made regarding whether to spend on traditional PR versus SEO or digital ads, data is available that makes an argument for why dollars should go toward the former.

So while a firm like NEA may not have a woman at the table when the big decisions are being made, there is an argument that it can afford the infrastructure needed to stem bad behavior, both at its portfolio companies and within its own ranks.

The argument could be made that you could never understand Bale when he spoke as Batman or that he was helped heavily by director Christopher Nolan.

With criticism of self - driving cars swirling, our hunch is that it's a staged video made in the hopes of driving the argument that autonomous vehicles are safe to get behind the wheel of, even when you're asleep.

As Harvard Business School lecturers John Neffinger and Matthew Kohutobserve observe in their book, «Compelling People: The Hidden Qualities That Make Us Influential,» when a discussion becomes an argument, it's no longer an exercise in logic and reasoning.

I made a similar argument several years ago, when CNN producer and veteran reporter Octavia Nasr was fired for expressing an opinion in a tweet.

It's Carlota Perez's argument that technology is adopted on an S curve: the installation phase, the crash — because the technology isn't ready yet — and then the deployment phase, when technology gets adopted by everyone and the real money gets made.»s Carlota Perez's argument that technology is adopted on an S curve: the installation phase, the crash — because the technology isn't ready yet — and then the deployment phase, when technology gets adopted by everyone and the real money gets made.»s argument that technology is adopted on an S curve: the installation phase, the crash — because the technology isn't ready yet — and then the deployment phase, when technology gets adopted by everyone and the real money gets made.»

When you run the Watch through this calculus, it's hard to make much of an argument in its favor.

One could make a compelling argument that those expenses should not be taken all at once, but instead spread out of the period when a drug is sold because it is equivalent to buying equipment for your bakery.

«I think it is usually when you have a point of maximum fear that you have got the greatest opportunities, so the Chinese market is so large and so deep that you can't just make an argument out of a few market movements and out of a few stocks,» he told CNBC.

That's an argument Sun CEO Scott McNealy makes frequently when defending his company's general reluctance to enter the services business but instead rely on partnerships with consulting firms.

Aaron Wright of Cardozo Law School, for example, has made a detailed case arguing that the SAFT is itself a security, from contract to token, an argument that looked prescient when earlier this year rumors began to swirl that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was going after lots of initial coin offering (ICO) projects.

Many of the same arguments are made in favour of solar power — I hear this every time when I criticize Ontario for paying 80c / kWh for solar power.

Bayer said in a statement that it doesn't control the cost for patients at the pharmacy, because copays are determined by insurers and pharmacy - benefit managers — an argument that pharmaceuticals companies have long made when facing criticism over drug prices.

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?

Consequently, a good argument can be made that the «core fundamentals» are now worse than they were when the gold price was $ 350 - $ 400.

When some asshat like you, just sayin, HeavenSent, Bob, etc. make blanket statements and refuse to respond to corrections, criticisms, or valid points refuting those statements, then there is no point in bringing up any kind of argument.

But selling these positions within the black community is made infinitely more difficult when my black critics are able to say, «But your argument plays into the hands of those who are looking for an excuse to abandon the black poor,» and I find myself unable credibly to contradict them.

Also completely erroneous is when they flip the argument to try and make us prove a negative when the original positive claim is not falsifiable.

Perhaps the best part of Secretary Clinton's speech was when she took on arguments against religious liberty made by authoritarians in places like Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and China.

Regardless, it's not as nice to have the frame of a well made argument dismissed as irrelevant when I didn't quote scripture or say I'd pray for you, right?

@Liz — It seems like the argument you are making is valid but only from the perspective of either creating a high risk of complication / retardation which science has proven when children are born to closely related people, and the «Ick» factor of not wanting to imagine two siblings getting it on.

I'm sorry but you're not making an argument to counter his, you have no references or citations to back up such a claim and so you revert to attacking this man by calling him gay??? really, you think your the world authority on the bible when then you start casting stones left and right and attacking your fellow man?

The argument is made that when inclusive language is conspicuous it bears witness to the sin of sexism.

The speaker in the cartoon is assuming that if homsexuals are made so by environmental factors, then all humans must be born neutral and their sexuality, in either direction, is shaped by the environment; when in fact one could also argue (and I believe the argument actually is) that humans are born hetero by default and shifted to homosexuality be environmental factors.

When this is done, no argument is needed against the real presence of a past figure, for a past figure by definition is not the present subjectivity, is not contemporary, and is precisely one no longer subject to being presented through the senses.7 The presence of a past figure can be made intelligible and justified only by a quite different notion of presence specifically appropriate to the relation of the past to the present.

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.

Or do you believe the pharmacy must be forced to rehire the pharmacist, as the Christians demanded (using your very same argument) when this made news?

Now most everyone would agree that it's not good to do that but my point is moral argument should have no place when making laws.

Leaving God unnamed does not make their argument any less theological, especially when they claim that the elements of complex design they have observed in nature are present because of the activity of their unnamed intelligent designer.

«If you leave your wild beliefs out of your argument, you'll have a much better chance of making a point that is logical to anyone other than you» -------- So why didn't you give that advice to Doc when he insinuated that God is anthropocentric?

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).

Your «nice try» comment is simply an attempt to deflect away from the substance of this argument, in trying to denigrate me as irrelevant... when in fact, all it does is reflect that you are trying to «get me to go away» because you have no substantive argument left to make.

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.

Even when an argument is won on pure logical grounds others are not necessarily going to be convinced, for logic does not equal plausibility and because pure logic always has its own inherent bias that makes people suspicious.

That is the argument even more forcefully developed in Veritatis Splendor, an earlier encyclical that makes the case that, when freedom is untethered from truth, the very foundation of freedom is destroyed.

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.

Capital punishment's lack of demonstrated superiority as a deterrent (the evidence for its effectiveness being at best mixed), the capacity of society to protect itself equally well by permanently imprisoning those who are currently being executed (which is possible at limited marginal cost, especially when one takes into account the cost of the extended trial procedures and interminable appeals and reviews which usually accompany capital punishment)-- all these points are important, but their utility is chiefly as rebuttal arguments in response to the empirically weak but emotionally strong claims made on behalf of capital punishment.

So your legally argument is the same argument that my side makes when the courts fall the other way.

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.

It's hilarious watching Chard pretend he's somehow making a point or winning the argument, when he's barely treading water.

That does not work in this argument... Jesus was making a point with the rich young man... the rich young man was trying to justify himself... and when Jesus presented him this..

He makes a similar argument to yours that it is ok to slaughter even infants and children, if that is what your god wants in cases where he doesn't want do do the terrible deeds himself, as he did when he supposedly wiped out almost all of humanity with a flood or sent a plague to kill 70,000 Israelites (2 Samuel 24:1 - 15), because David conducted a census, Yahweh caused him to conduct.

It's sad when contemporary arguments are made over interpretations of what some guy said 150 years ago vs. what some other guys may have said a couple thousand years ago.