Sentences with phrase «just arguing against»

it seems to me that you are just arguing against this current change because it is not what you are used to, not because you identify any situation where the SCC's approach in Clements leads to an illogical or unfair result.

And that's great, and I'll say again that I wasn't arguing against it, just arguing against self - publishing without knowing what you're getting in for — and without using Guy's book as your bible.

Even Krugman spent years just arguing against austerity because it was impolitic to attack his own party for timidity, ignorance, and corruption.

But Snyder will have to do more than just argue against local control.

Not exact matches

How many times have we argued with someone knowing they were really right, yet we just won't give in due to that darn ego,» says Donald Burns, a 33 - year veteran of the restaurant industry who warns against shutting out other perspectives.

While it certainly is a strike against companies like DraftKings and FanDuel, which are trying to argue that their companies operate as skill - based competitions, the cease - and - desist letter is just the tip of a lengthy legal process.

David Sanford, chairman of Sanford Heisler Sharp, the law firm that argued the largest - ever employment gender discrimination case to go to trial — a class action suit against Novartis Pharmaceuticals that resulted in a $ 253 million jury award for plaintiffs in 2010, reduced post-trial to $ 175 million — noted that in that case, the company had just three investigators for a workforce of thousands.

As an aside, perhaps just one important indicator, the maker of this rule, though wikipedia predicts an eventual Nobel, is a nutcase, full of rational expectations, promoting a flat income tax, and arguing against fiscal stimulus (see WSJ article below).

Don't fight against it, don't argue, just drop out and show that you can satisfy that need without being in college.

Some argue using a permission blockchain would help as it would only allow a few people to fully access the records, but the possibility of having a government official (or just the regular public) know how an individual vote goes against the premise of free and fair elections.

First question should always be, it is not just the rational science these people are arguing against, it also the numerous other faiths, many of whom have their own doctrines of how the world started.

George Bush, on the other hand, was the democratically elected leader of a free nation conducting what was, most would argue, a just war against Saddam's undoubted aggression.

Just out of curiosity, back when you were «one of the champions in the church proudly speaking out against the threat of the homosexual offenders» what were the reasons you used to argue for that position?

Both are weighty issues that deal explicitly with «high cosmic justice,» so if he argues that a government overreaches its authority to execute justice by attempting to «balance the books of the universe» in repaying blood with blood, then does that mean there can never be any just criteria for one nation to retaliate against another after an unprovoked attack» an attack that in essence would repay blood with blood?

In particular Michel Barnes argues against readings of Augustine which, on account of Augustine's alleged reliance on Neoplatonism, hold him responsible for a supposedly chronic trinitarian deficit in Western theology, only just now made good.

Therefore, the non-Calvinist has just as much right to say «Who are you, O man, to argue against God?»

For example, Moses Stuart of Andover Seminary in Massachusetts (who was sympathetic to the eventual emancipation of American slaves, but was against abolition), published a tract in which he pointed to Ephesians 6 and other biblical texts to argue that while slaves should be treated fairly by their owners, abolitionists just didn't have Scripture on their side and «must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the fiery course which they are pursuing.»

Just as he did in the garden of Eden, he whispers, «Did God really say...» (Genesis 3:1) He questions us, confuses us and argues against us until we are confused.

I wish someone had told that to the Reformers, some of whom were burned for translating the Bible into their native languages so people could read it, who argued for salvation by grace against a salvation by works Gospel, who argued for Jesus as the son of God, uncreated, instead of just one among many of «God's» created beings.

Germany, which is also working to fight fake news, has considered fines against companies like Google and Facebook for allowing the fake news to be published, but Google and Facebook argue that they're not producing the fake news, they're just a place to publish the news.

but you would argue against that because you want cops just «doing whats right» — which is suspect to personal feelings of right and wrong!

Fourthly, if we subscribe to the notion that there is no separation regarding work (viewed as worship — Col 3:17, 23 - 24; Rom 12:1) in the church and the marketplace, why shouldn't Christians (who argue against receiving God's provision in the form of a salary) just «trust God», and reject their employers» salary structure?

And if you reply with anything that says that Jesus is a facet or aspect or anything else of God, then you can't turn around and argue against mixing God (s)-- and the theory that Allah, or Yahweh, are other names for the same God, because you've already by < definition argued that God can have multiple aspects — why just the three names for them from Trinity theology?

I can argue from history and philosophy against religion and it is none of my business if others just simply believe as long as there are no victims.

In 1934 he published Reflections on the End of an Era, in which he continued to argue for a realistic political theory that would set power against power and bring about a more just social system.

Na, it's just an invented word used in contrast with small - scale evolution, micro-evolution, that we can see in the field and therefore can not be argued against.

† Christians do not really exist, they just pretend that they believe in God and argue with non-religious people while not knowing very much at all regarding Christianity or the meaning of the bible and disregarding half of what the bible says only to strongly vocalize their stance against the other half of the bible that is against things that they either do not understand or that do not affect them personally.

It was Sheikh Ali who defended us against his friend, arguing that if we had saved just one life, as the Quran said, it was as if we had saved the whole of humanity.

@Todd — but either way (regarding my last post)-- I would think one could just as easily argue that there is still nothing «immaterial» about the tendency for the mind to behave similarly against certain situations.

But a just appreciation of God's general revelation of Himself should preserve the truth that Christianity has meaning for man precisely because it represents a fulfillment of the knowledge of God which is made possible through all the things which He has made, Nygren claims, of course, simply to be setting forth scientifically the fundamental Christian motif without arguing its truth or value against any other motif.

It's just pathetic and not even worth arguing against.

Supporters of a change in the current DOD policy argue that just as blacks and women experienced discrimination in the past, so too are homosexuals discriminated against today by being excluded from military service.

In Just War Against Terror Elshtain argues «that true international justice is defined as the equal claim of all persons in the world to having coercive force deployed in their behalf if they are victims of one of the many horrors attendant upon radical political instability....

It is so sad that so many atheists will spend most of their lives fighting and arguing against the very thing that can save them, only to die and go to hell and then to spend eternity regretting the fact that they wasted all of their time arguing about it rather than just accepting it, rather than just believing, and a belief that could have saved them.

You've successfully refuted your position that «morality is relative» just by arguing against the points I've made.

Against the view that «wage inflation» is to be avoided one can argue that precisely the increase of wages is urgently needed for a just society.

You are right in your definition of the principle of debate, but that's why we get nowhere with many serious issues of the world, we debate and argue without thought or understanding of the other side, we just learn enough to put together arguments against others.

This inferiority of the rationalistic level in founding belief is just as manifest when rationalism argues for religion as when it argues against it.

You're just like people who don't believe in unicorns, except you run around all day rubbing it in peoples» faces like it makes you a better person, and while people don't have the head to argue against you, secretly most people wish you would just shut up already.

You must argue against Gods attributes which just degrades into speculation and a design of a god that fits our vision not the God revealed through all existence.

Yet philosophers at least since Kant have argued with great force against just such a notion of pure receptivity and have asserted in a variety of ways that the subject is always an active participant in the process of knowing.

In all honesty, the «religious people» that don't legislate against things based solely on their religious convictions and thereby hurt the rights of individuals, and who don't condemn science and medicine and societal progression and other religions and other denominations and people who are not religious, and who don't claim to know that something is true beyond all other truths, are probably a very slim minority, and I'd have to argue that they aren't really religious, they are just doing whatever makes them feel good, which could be accomplished through secular means as well.

One feels one should argue against that decision, but it is hard to know just how.

Catholic citizens have every reason — including the truth of the matter — to argue that our Constitution is much more democratic that our Court now says it is, just as they have every reason to argue that our Framers never meant «liberty» to be used as a wrecking ball deployed against our indispensable relational «intermediary» institutions — beginning with the family and the church.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responJust like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responjust would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

Others argue against it as being unsustainable and just a fad.

I'm not arguing just to argue and I'm not against a call up.

Id take Cavani over Giroud too, you just cant argue against the heights (numbers) he has reached within the game.

I assumed the comment was directed at the piece, and just felt like, why argue against a point I never made?

I'm not arguing against that, just stating a reason that deep runs into the tournament are exceptions and not the rule.