Sentences with phrase «kinds of arguments about»

You'll find exactly the same kinds of arguments about racial integration in the armed forces that you're hearing now about gays in the miltary.

I assume he'd make the same kind of argument about Martin Luther King's «Southern Christian Leadership Conference» telling minorities to speak out, be heard and attend non-violent demonstrations.

And then, how can you be confident in using them in any kind of argument about the future, let alone in them predicting the future.

Not exact matches

The core of any argument about stories of this kind is that they are protected by the First Amendment because there is a clear public interest in having the information released that outweighs the fact that it was classified, or may have been obtained by illegal means.

DUBNER: So, to summarize your overall argument about our rise and fall of American growth: would it be an overstatement to say that there was a lot of low - hanging fruit — physical and labor, and all other kinds of fruit that we picked beautifully and ate hungrily, and we did really well with — and that those things, once used up, that kind of gain will never appear again as far as you can see?

Whatever the arguments about fiscal policy's effectiveness in countering deep and lasting recessions, of a kind the world faced in 2008, it was never envisaged that it should be wheeled out the minute economic growth fell below two per cent.

You don't know what theories are in a scientific context, you make an argument equivalent to «people can't take strides greater than ten feet, therefore it's impossible to run a marathon,» and you think that the lack of a full understanding about a particular hypothetical explanation is some kind of demonstration that science is an abject failure.

Anyways, most of my arguments can be summed up in one sentence: hey, how about you use some common sense, be kind, love everyone, and don't be such an ass?

Forcing the case for this kind of living moral alternative into the narrow confines of an argument that is just about religion and liberty makes the treasure we seek to protect seem smaller and less significant than it truly is.

It just seems to me that as a writer / researcher who clearly knows better, it is really your job to attack, debunk and tear these assinine arguments about Obama's religious convictions to pieces rather than giving them some kind of legitimacy.

As a literary endeavor, Gideon's Torch will likely receive short shrift, but the argument presented in the form of a novel deserves careful attention and should prompt sobering discussions about the kind of nation we are and could become.

If we accept Jamison's argument that the greater community might derive an evolutionary benefit from containing a number of mentally ill people, since such an illness is often accompanied by unusual creative talents, what does this say about the kind of Creator who guides the evolutionary process?

I couldn't connect to the kind of devotional, emotional spirituality so many of my friends seemed to enjoy; and most of the time I'd rather study the details of Paul's arguments about justification than meditate on a Psalm.

One last note about this kind of argument.

One hates to make old arguments, but if this education teaches (as other sections of the report make clear that is must) the familiar doctrines about how very wrong it is to impose any kind of normative standard on the many forms that peoples» desires can take, on what basis does it exclude pornography or the sexualization of young girls as legitimate forms of the varied human sexual appetite?

Justin notes that Paul's rhetorical strategy here is to begin by talking about wicked people who had turned from God and gotten caught up in all kinds of sins, only to turn the argument on his readers by declaring, «Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.

Many of us who have written about Rawls» argument have noted that the people behind his famous «veil of ignorance» are a peculiar kind of people (i.e., people very much like John Rawls) and therefore can hardly serve as the normative deliberators producing universal moral principles.

7Using a similar kind of argument Bernard Loomer argued that what is distinctive about process thought is not its substitution of «process» for «being,» for if this were it, then «in many respects we really would not need process thought to get on with things.»

What's so stupid about this argument is straight couples have the same kind of sex.

These assertions often do not differ markedly from the kinds of theoretical and explanatory arguments prevalent in the social science literature, but they serve as rhetorical appeals aimed at shaping the way we think about our world, the ways we vote, and the policies we support.

Hasker's fourth argument involves my statement that, within a Hick - Hasker type of theism, it would be difficult to say whether its deity would be more blameworthy for deceiving us about the kind of freedom we have or for gratuitously giving us genuine, dangerous freedom.

Let us examine these arguments and worry a little about the kind of language - structure within which they are presumed to be formulated.

Unfortunately that didn't happen and whatever this virus was kind of set back most of my arguments about calling him up ASAP.

When Samuel commented on why it was wrong to sell Lucas Perez you brought up stats between Walcott and Perez and in that you proved using the stats why Walcott is better.If Wenger didn't have blond love for some of his players then why did he keep benching Perez when he was performing yet the average guys always got a look in the squad.So if there are stats which prove Walcott is better aren't there stats which also prove Perez is better?Think about that.You also said Perez is not as good as some of us make out.The funny thing is yesterday we had an argument on Giroud and I also tried to imply that Giroud is not as good as we make out and you opposed.You always kept bringing stats up to defend him.Do you know if Bendtner or Chamakh had scored 25 goals for Arsenal in any season they'd still have been regarded as average.You know why?Because quality has nothing to do with stats and is just a kind pf talent or state.It seems to me that you think you know it all.You also denied the fact that Wenger likes French players and that if Perez was French he wouldn't have been out in one season stating other players as examples.It seems to me that you deny things which are clear for everyone to see.If you think you know better than everyone go and teach Wenger how to win the trophy this season.

There's also the category systemthat was set up by the club, which kind of sends the argument about «sucking it up» a little less palatable.

What annoys me very much about the «whatabout» argument is it is completly devoid of any kind of contextual content whatsoever.

Naturally, any debate about state power and the role of technology can not be divorced from wider arguments about the kind of politics and society we wish to create.

Everybody would be angry about the drug dealer - the point I was trying to make is that the reciprocity argument applied to him is different in kind from that applied to someone for whom «unearned wealth» accumulates independent of the taxpayer.

He has won the arguments already, people are highly sceptical about charging off to bomb children, and that is the kind of language we need to use to show these people up for what they are, Hilary Benn included.

I think the prime minister is very anxious to try to bring the whole party together around some kind of compromise proposal and the argument is going on about this.

And Copernicus actually, to his credit, thought threw these, «cause he was used to hearing them, so he kind of gives you some arguments that you can use and he talks about that.

About it being «artificial» (using it loosely as i do nt want to be in an argument nor any kind of conflict) I just meant that it uses artificially produced kefir starters (which also lacks organisms that can be found in traditional kefir) and not the grains that we all use and love.

But whether she's working closely with her editors or she's leaving them little choice in how to cut her films because of how lean her scripts and footage are, this kind of short, snappy, collage - like approach to storytelling has become Gerwig's «style» — which undercuts the argument that there's nothing distinctive about the way her movies look and feel.

There have been compelling arguments for either film being the very best of its kind, while some have stated that Rocky is «the greatest boxing movie», whereas Raging Bull is «the greatest movie about boxing», which does offer a vague (if nonetheless significant) distinction.

He said: «Our argument is that if you don't come from a home where your parents speak in a grammatically correct form day in day out, if you don't have a home surrounded by books, where reading isn't a daily occurrence, [children] need that kind of structural instruction and teaching about how sentences should be constructed.

If you care more about salaries, pensions, job security, and perks for a closed class of mostly mediocre people «phoning it in,» there are all kinds of good arguments against school choice.

as it scythes through bends, sitting flat and gripping with the kind of vociferousness often seen in politically charged arguments about EV incentives.

When people have these arguments about difficulty, I find it kind of petty and pointless.

It no longer creates the kinds of visceral arguments about the nature of art that it did back in the 20th century, when Rachel Whiteread won both the Turner in 1993 and the K Foundation award for «worst artist of the year».

But to resort to this kind of argumentation it also makes you wonder about the confidence he has in his own argument.

One may put up all kinds of arguments to discredit this obvious scientific fact of life in 2018 ongoing, and get lost in distractions about mathematical trend lines extracting out la nina and el ninos, but that is entirely IRRELEVANT to what I have written, and am addressing here, in my own way.

But I'm seriously concerned that the kind of arguments used in the Keystone debate don't bode well for the prospect of a well - informed US electorate on what will be required to keep CO2 below about 450 ppm.

There's a whole separate argument about what kind of insurance, and how much, we need to buy to limit long - term climate hazards.

The good news, this is the kind of definitive argument that survives the ages when future historians and scientists seek to learn about educated exchanges between scientists about their research.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

Considering the readership numbers about which Latimer Adler just bragged, considering (at least for argument's sake) that newspapers have some kind of intellectual impact, and considering that David Rose did misrepresent climate science results in a manner that may make readers doubt of his honesty, even Stirling English will have to admit that the claim of harm BartR was alluding to earlier might have some merit.

I have a history with Andy Revkin's DotEarth, which is prone to provide fuel for sloppy thinking about weather and climate, as well as a hangout for the worst kind of clever - looking phony skeptic arguments.

It sounds great in a debate, and I'm in no way a denier, but it always kind of bothers me that this isn't really an argument from evidence — assuming of course that you're arguing about whether or not climate change is real.

To draw a parallel with the science of evolutionary genetics, it would be like continuing to rehash and rehash and restate the «argument» about whether there is in fact any kind of inheritance through the process of reproduction.

About the coverage: The comedy duo adopted a five - year insurance plan to protect themselves against the kind of argument that would destroy their careers.