Sentences with phrase «like arguments with»

Try to evaluate whether your child wants to quit impulsively, because of a minor glitch like an argument with a friend, or whether the desire runs deeper.

And while stress may occur due to an external source (like an argument with your spouse), anxiety tends to be a more internal response.

They might be dealing with a stressful situation at home like a parent losing his or her job, or maybe something more momentary like an argument with a friend.

For some younger artists, though, abstraction may look more like an argument with modern art.

That seemed to be a voice, or narrative, that was only half - followed through — like an argument with a couple of key points missing.

Not exact matches

The arguments for participating in such off - the - record briefings are fairly obvious, just as they were for technology titans like Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Apple CEO Tim Cook, who got roped into a tech summit with Trump at the Trump Tower last week.

Before this starts to sound like the annual lecture from management — perhaps you're one of those corporate employees forced to sleepwalk through an intranet quiz once in a while to prove to your higher - ups that you're familiar with the company's code of conduct — consider DeMars's argument for the value of the ethical office from a personal standpoint: «In order to live happily and at peace with ourselves, we have to live in ways that are congruent with our morals,» she argues.

It presented two findings: First, the German public didn't like the reforms passed by Merkel's government in its first year; second, when the public was presented with arguments and data justifying the reforms, it liked them even less.

A few of the arguments, like how the long lineups provide fans an opportunity to talk movies with their fellow attendees, made sense even though I wouldn't consider them a worthy tradeoff for all the other issues.

While I truly want to be with you on the hands - off - free - market argument, I just have to believe that these rules are in place for good reasons... like making sure your sweet Granny don't get fleeced by a huckster.

With that said, I would like to play the devil's advocate for a second vis - à - vis your arguments regarding actual GDP growth and the overall productivity of investment.

I am not sure that I can balance all that I like about it with the feeling of always being in an argument.

An argument can be made that there are no «regulators» that can bring down the price of bitcoin like they could with silver.

While this sounds like monetary madness, it should be remembered that Ben Bernanke, former Chair of the US Federal Reserve, urged such action on the Japanese government a decade ago to deal with that country's deflationary crisis, and referenced Milton Friedman's argument that a central bank financed stimulus via a «helicopter drop» of money could have saved the United States from the Great Depression.

This summer, with all the good letters already taken, the former labor secretary Robert Reich wrote on his blog that the recovery might actually be shaped like an X (the imagery is elusive, but Reich's argument was that there can be no recovery until we find an entirely new model of economic growth).

The problem with this argument is that what is good for oil producers and exporters is inversely bad for major oil consumers and importers like the United States, Europe, and China in this zero sum game of global energy markets.

For the defender of the emergency fund, if the argument has to do with risk mitigation we agree that an (almost) all equity portfolio like ours might too risky.

Let's hope that when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the case on October 2, the Justices will side with regular working people like Hobson, not with the big bosses and corporations who want to use the fine print to rig the rules against the rest of us.

In the real world, we define fallacies for debate purposes and validating arguments which is not happening here in the forums with hateful trolls like you.

Dr. Craig, while intelligent and very eloquent, is a second - rate philosopher with fallacy - riddled, tired, hackneyed, oft - repeated arguments and your Craig nutt - hugging (I don't think Jesus would like that Chad, kinda gay) just shows how limited your cognitive abilities really are.

-LSB-...] His argument goes like this: the mind is identical with the brain, so a thought must be an event in the brain.

The question of Catholic institutions like Notre Dame — their odd relation to the Church and their peculiar relation to the nation — is already pressing on us, and it requires no great leap to predict that, over the next decade, this question will dominate the public stage as the central Catholic problem of our time: the locus of media attention and the flashpoint for the arguments of Catholics with one another.

Throughout you have twisted and confused the definitions of words like religion, belief, faith, Agnostic and Atheist with faulty logic and broken arguments.

... 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.

But is does seem like this policy is being advocated by some reasonable - sounding people with plausible arguments and it does seem to have a respectable intellectual roots.

Actually, my favorite of hers, which unfortunately I can no longer find the link to, was something about the argument tactics of conservatives: That we like to overwhelm our opponents with... what was it?

On the other hand, if your religion tells you things that can't be backed up with good secular arguments (like putting to death or shunning certain «undesirables») then those religious aspects should be kept out of the larger secular world.

like former leader... we too have kept open house and had people live with us long and short term for nearly all our married life... we've had debate, argument, sadness, hilarity... even had someone with a disturbing psychosis... not at one stage have we felt the need to make any rules... that would almost be like copping out of relationship.

Every debate Craig has had with an atheist «philosopher» or «thinker» has looked more like a learned professor trying mightily to explain basic arguments to a freshman with ADD... you know, the kind the sits in the back and only raises their hand to drop a line they remember from last night's Jon Stewart show?

We do it every single day in the media where the main issue is ignored to promote a «talking point» that favors the authors argument or criticism with some they do nt like.

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.

Instead, they have tried to avoid the moral issue and win with pragmatic arguments, like what women need, the economics of raising a child, etc..

A Thing like a job decision or a ministry opportunity or a church disaster or an argument or issues with children or loss or grief or pain or All The Other Things.

While I do not believe that the Resurrection was a historical event, your poorly phrased argument makes not only you, but atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians in general look like fools... primarily because we get associated with silly arguments like this.

Atlanta is often compared to Twin Peaks (creator Donald Glover said it himself about the show's first season, calling it «Twin Peaks with rappers»), but there's an argument to be made it's more like The Simpsons.

So out with your proof of the Abrahamic God using whatever metaphysical argument you like, alfonse.

You can't cite something as proof of your argument if you have to preface it with «That sounds a lot like...».

In recent years, conservative Aristotelian - Thomists like Patrick Deneen and Alasdair MacIntyre have made the argument that a moral philosophy entailing a substantive account of human happiness or fulfillment is simply incompatible with the American liberal - democratic political order.

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.

Defending the argument is only necessary because the stupid an unsubstantiated claim that «atheists killed more than Christians» is repeatedly made, and usually done so with imaginary figures like «Mao killed 800 million people».

As he often does, however, Schama overextends and trivializes his argument, interpreting the composition, with Anslo at its elevated center, as a portrait of a marriage in which the domineering husband «leans heavily toward his wife, benevolently overbearing, just short of bullying,» while Aeltje, «her head slightly cocked like an obedient pet or a contrite child,» patiently accedes to his diatribe.

There is a problem with this argument, however, because these words do not really behave like a proper name.

Just because pro-choice advocates make these arguments does not mean that courts (the same courts that are ready to overrule Roe) are likely to discover abortion rights under a statute that does not even mention abortion and that was enacted with the support of pro-life groups like the National Association of Evangelicals and the Mormon Church.

And this is why the issue will never go away — because people like George want to equate abortion with ra.pe — some people will obviously never see the argument from the other side and thus will not compromise.

If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it.

To critics of biblical inerrancy, it sounds like we Christians are making the same argument as this man uses: Is this what we do with Scripture?

I will be happy to calmy and rationally debate you as long as you would like, but if you think I simply don't understand your argument because I don't agree with it, then you've made a poor deduction.

Assume for the sake of argument that extraterrestrial life exists, and that it is based on proteins and DNA like the life on earth with which we are familiar.

Sensing, perhaps, that his arguments align him too closely with neoconservatives like Secretary of Education Bennett (and Allan Bloom, for that matter), for whom attacks on the schools and calls for a return to a commonly held culture are recurring themes, he retreats a bit.

Last, and paradoxically, the word «inerrancy» undermines its apologetic intent by reflecting a defensiveness toward Scripture that is out of keeping with the gospel's own boldly proclaimed confidence.52 For these reasons, Hubbard has become increasingly uncomfortable with the use of the term «inerrancy» to describe his basic commitment to Scripture's infallibility, though he has no basic argument with those like Pinnock who use the term as qualified and understood Biblically.