Sentences with phrase «making an argument based»

But as far as I'm concerned I just made an argument based on the premise of invisible yellow howling mute amphibian tree monkeys, so this isn't a line of debate I plan to carry on too long.

It makes an argument based upon shining examples of resistance, but such examples can not in themselves disprove that Lutheranism creates a general ethos of passivity among the broader population.

For some people they can also make the argument based on their own Social Idealogical Interpretation of How «Marriage» should be re-defined in the United States where Polygamy is considered as their own interpretation of Marriage.

After all, they are making their arguments based on provably bad «science».

You will also get people who take a number regarding the amounts going into each asset category which is subjectively determined and make argument based on the work of an academic or two that you should often be rebalancing your portfolio based on some precise formula.

The issue with making an argument based on emotion is that you're always going to have that «Yeah, but» reaction.

It would be difficult to make an argument based on aesthetics to account for the world auction record achieved at Christie's by Piero Manzoni's «Achrome.»

Making the arguments based on very long periods, like the Stern Review did for its economic comparisons, is actually an admission that we can not justify our views, but try to mislead the audience to believe that we can.

Who makes an argument based on a graph for one location when the topic is global sea level?

I define argument by ignorance as making an argument based on ignorance of a major relevant fact.

There is a tradition in politics that is similar to one in the legal profession: When evidence supports your position, make your argument based on the evidence, but when it argues against your position, ignore the evidence and appeal to emotion.

There might, in addition, be better cases in which to make arguments based on statistics.

In Nyembo v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal, 2007 IESC 25, the applicant was permitted by the Supreme Court to make an argument based on statistics which demonstrated an elevated rate of refusal, but the case settled before the judicial review concluded.

I've heard insurance adjusters and defense attorneys make arguments based upon a delay in medical care more times than I can count.

Again, please make your arguments based on evidence, not fear or conjecture.

Not exact matches

Grantham is also bullish on two particular asset classes — farmland and forestry — based on the simple argument that «they don't make any more of it» and we need land to grow food.

So while there are certainly arguments to be made in favor of a rules - based Fed over the pure discretion of the current PhD standard, such reform should not be viewed as a solution to the real issue, which is a central bank having a monopoly on money at all.

Make the argument as to why you're a fit based on what you learned in the interview rather than what it says in the job description.

The author is making a really crappy argument based on past trends and isn't even doing the must fundamental statistical analysis.

Any adviser that makes a recommendation based on technical analysis will have a hard time making a straight - faced argument to clients (or a court) that they fulfilled their fiduciary duties.

Use data to drive better decision - making, because it trumps any arguments that are opinion - based or anecdotal.

Based purely on long - term cycles, a successful argument could be made that we have been in a secular commodity bull market since the turn of the century in 2000.

A more reasonable argument against wine is made based on an interpretation of Romans 14:21: «It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.»

The problem with that argument is that with this new evidence they are not making a claim based on «silence» they are basing it on actual archaeological data.

Based on some of the arguments Grossman made about how administrative efforts to prevent sexually transmitted disease actually lead to more sexual activity, more disease, and more psychological distress, Nava penned an op / ed for the Daily Princetonian questioning the campus's programs on condom distribution and sexual health titled «Princeton's Latex Lies.»

But even without that data, a substantive argument can be made based on the natural law.

In doing so, you are basing your argument upon appealing to the exception rather than the rule which makes for a weak argument in my opinion.

Your making a logical argument based off faith.

All her arguments have already been made on the basis of Big Bang evidence (relation between the distance and speed of galaxies, nucleosynthesis, etc.).

your argument has no basis whatsoever... just because it is described in detail does not automatically make it as something that actually exists!!

Therefore, you have no true basis for making intelligent arguments on Judaism OR Christianity.

He made a rational claim and evidence based argument as to why creationism is silly and should not be espoused.

Their reasoning is that public decisions should be made on the basis of principles and arguments accessible to all persons.

I would say that the fact that your watches and calendars are BASED on these calendars, would therefore mean that I could rip the floor out of ANY argument you make regarding this world to be more than 5773 years old.

To say that the claims that are based off of a book were created after the book was first written is just stupid (maybe your argument isn't what you typed and you made an error in trying to convey your thoughts).

I find that I can make a more compelling argument against the pledge of allegiance if I base that argument on political beliefs as opposed to my religious beliefs.

Lindbeck's «experiential - expressivist» model does a reasonably good job of accounting for the romantic and mystical streams of liberal theology, but it does not account for variants of liberal theology that make gospel - centered claims (such as the tradition of evangelical» liberalism), that base their affirmations on metaphysical arguments (such as the Whiteheadian process school) or that appeal to gospel norms and metaphysical arguments (such as the Boston personalist school).

They sound primitive, but we had best not assume the hypothesis as proved and make it the basis of further argument or additional hypothesis.

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?

You are trying to make a logical argument based on faulty things.

A counter argument to autonomy as a justification for euthanasia / PAS can be made on the basis of religious beliefs and moral philosophy.

While they amplify understandings of the structures of becoming that seem to be exemplified everywhere in history, and while they build general arguments based on those structures, they can not be said to be primarily interested in examining any particular historical society This is not to deny that, say, Whitehead or Charles Hartshorne made pungent and perceptive commentaries on the histories in which they lived — for they did.

This stringency seems to provide some grounds for the type of probability - based anti-evolutionary argument that Dawkins sets out to refute in Climbing Mount Improbable, and provides some support for the arguments Johnson makes in Reason and the Balance concerning the unlikelihood of major evolutionary transitions occurring solely by Darwinian mechanisms.

While the Nazi party and the various ethnic cleansings in Armenia, the Balkans, and Africa were not really based upon atheism (thus making his argument that atheism has killed more folks than organized religion a bit shaky), ALL of the instances he mentions are bona - fide examples of almost incomprehensibly large numbers of deaths, NONE of which can be blamed, even remotely, on «organized religion.»

lol, yes clay i am an atheist... i created the sun whorshipping thing to have argument against religion from a religious stand point... however, the sun makes more sense then something you can't see or feel — the sun also gives free energy... your god once did that for the jews, my gives it to the human race as well as everything else on the planet, fuk even the planet is nothing without the sun... but back to your point — yes it is very hypocritical of me, AND thats the point, every religious person i have ever met has and on a constant basis broken the tenets of there faith without regard for there souls — it seems to only be the person's conscience that dictates what is right and wrong... the belief in a god figure is just because its tradition to and plus every else believes so its always to be part of the group instead of an outsider — that is sadly human nature to be part of the group.

I think the argument could be made that this Church teaching is not based upon the idea that marital sex intentionally practised during infertile periods is intrinsically «imperfect» - read, «somewhat bad» - but upon the divine command of Genesis 1:28: «Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth.»

Based on the logic of compassion and discrimination it will be a good argument for a Child Predator to make himself right.

To be sure, one can make arguments for the existence of God based on naturally inexplicable events, such as miracles or fulfillments of prophecies.

Like Mehta, Lewis objected to God on the basis of the evil he saw in the world, but his conversion mirrored that of Leah's as he realised that his objection only made sense if a moral realm existed: «My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.

You are obviously filled with a lot of anger that you need to lash out to people about what they believe and try to make compelling, but errant, arguments based on other people's quotes.