Sentences with phrase «man argument would»

I mean, you wouldn't want to fall into a straw man argument would you?

So arguing about something means it exists??? Crap so all those Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and He - man arguments I had as a kid made them real!!!!

Not exact matches

Now, new details have been released to The Hollywood Reporter about Depp's credit card expenses after The Man del Company (TMG) were told by the court to «reframe their arguments about the actor's spending.»

Ultimately, that's a straw - man argument that has been made in the face of every new advance in communications technology.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has rejected an argument that a man convicted of three counts of sexual assault should not have to comply with sex offender registration for his entire lifetime, based on constitutional grounds.

Your argument is a straw man and has been refuted by millions, many of them theists.

The funny thing here is that nothing this man references even comes close to supporting his ultimate argument that God would recognize or bless gay - marriage.

An argument against my position, of course, is having African - American soldiers serving at forts named for very or even fantically pro-slavery men (not Lee [although he was okay with slavery], but check out some of the others).

The Decline of Males, his 1999 book, was particularly controversial among feminists for its argument that female contraceptives had altered the balance between the sexes in disturbing new ways (especially by taking from men any say in whether they could have children).

@ Jillienne «Stand YOUR own ground, don't expect people to forsake God by telling them how «impossible» it is for a man to be swallowed by a fish, an argument that really bears no weight actually, because frankly, if you believe that Dinosaurs once roamed the earth (a proven fact) there is nothing wrong with believing a man could have been swallowed by a giant whale... it's really not that strange..»

A more correct argument would be this: Christians claim that man exists because of god.

As a participant in that 1998 Ramsey Colloquium, a longtime supporter of the cautious use of rights language, and a frequent critic of its misuses, I was moved by Reno's arguments to ponder whether the noble post — World War II universal human - rights idea has finally been so manipulated and politicized as to justify its abandonment by men and women of good will.

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?

That argument could be made for any and every god ever conceived by man... and probably has.

«Have faith» and «It's in the Bible» are both Straw Man arguments.

You know I have a valid point here, but to avoid acknowledging it you resort to a straw man argument, and straw man arguments are intellectually dishonest.

Why must there be so many damn trolls on these sites — does the atheist v theist debate never evolve past name calling and straw - man arguments...?

From just these six telling arguments I would argue that Calvinism is overcome»... but to question Calvin is to question only a man... Paul on occasion questioned the leading Apostle Peter so if you think it is out of line to question so august a name as Calvin, then you must not agree with Paul on his direct criticism of Peter either.

Launch an Arminianism Awareness Day to address some of the common misconceptions about Arminians — that we think grace is earned, that we have a «man - centered» theology, that we're all dispensationalists, that just because we lost that one argument with our Calvinist roommate back in 2003 we're always wrong.

And would it not be desirable if I could confine the terms of my argument to meat and drink, and did not need to bring in kings, whose thoughts are not always like those of other men, if they are indeed kingly.

The argument — a fallacious one, to be sure — is that man «come of age» has no need of God, or that psychoanalytic doctrines have rendered God obsolete.

I haven't heard that argument used for movies since the early days of pornography when hard - core pictures were preceded by a warning from a man wearing a doctor's smock about the terrible things viewers were about to witness.

I personally do nt care what you believe or do nt believe — I only have to answer for myself... The very same pride and arrogance displayed here was also evident at the trial and execution of Jesus... mankind is still the same... quite an argument against the progressivism of man...

You have sought out what you acknowledge as weak arguments and refuted them (some better than others), a straw man approach all the way around.

Having being on the receiving end of the «man - hater» comment more times than I can count, seeing it listed as number one — in the form of «I like white males so much I married one» — rubbed me the wrong way.Being called a man - hater is often unfairly used as a way to silence women and dismiss their arguments outright, which is troubling, especially when it happens in the midst of a theological discussion.

It may indeed seem that what I have done so far is to offer a tentative argument against the claims of an exemplarist interpretation of Christ's work, namely, that if he is offered us as an exemplar his experience is in crucial respects too relative and limited to offer a wholly significant guide - post to men and women in all the circumstances of their lives.

For it would seem that the arguments from order and from contingency either rest on a misunderstanding of what an explanation is, or more likely, on an arbitrary supposition that man's experience is intelligible precisely in this way.

In fact, it is the feeling of causality which enables the man to distinguish the priority of the flash; and the inversion of the argument, whereby the temporal sequence «flash to blink» is made the premise for the «causality» belief; has its origin in pure theory.

Thinking abilities disabled... check Lobotomy performed, just in case any reasoning faculties are still active... check «GOD H8S F.AGS» T - shirt... check Armed with 2000 year old arguments for invisible old men in the sky that have been refuted on countless occasions... check

I would say he makes the perfect argument that religion and god are manmade because if god was perfect, he wouldn't have to change himself to fit man.

Certainly, there are many things I appreciate about John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, Martin Luther, and the other Reformers, but I have too many differences with the main theological arguments of each man to be comfortable identifying myself with the theological systems that bear their names.

now YOU are seeming to imply that man does not make mistakes... your argument is rather silly... MAN have differences of opinions and man MAKEs mistakeman does not make mistakes... your argument is rather silly... MAN have differences of opinions and man MAKEs mistakeMAN have differences of opinions and man MAKEs mistakeman MAKEs mistakes..

«I'm happy to live in this period... where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history... We aren't engaged in any negative protest and in any negative arguments with anybody.

The difference here of course has nothing to do with trustung what «men» have written, it has to do with faith in whatever diety you believe... If you accept that there is a diety responsible for inspiring someone to write about them then really it is not the person writing but the diety writing through them... so your argument from that perspective is moot...

The man claims intelligence and makes arguments no sane theologian of any sect would make, unless purely as hypothetical.

It's an insufficient argument to say «Jesus didn't do this during his lifetime so it is something he would never do» (Jesus healed, so Doctor is an OK profession, but he never pulled anyone out of burning buildings, so Firefighters are obviously just following the ways of MAN!).

My argument would he lost, however, if the above reasoning were taken to mean that men have no social responsibilities and that states have no moral responsibilities.

All of these considerations do not change the fact that for a long time American society has been organized around the image of the successful white Anglo - Saxon man, nor assuage the bitterness of those excluded from the central rewards of the society because of the fact of sex or race or age.22 Plato long ago pointed out that the tyrant who can gratify every whim is the greatest slave of all, because he is completely at the mercy of his own desires, but he did not mean that argument as an excuse for tyrants.

If hers is in some respects an argument against what feminism has become, she does not — as some women of her generation have, to the delight of some men — reject the language that sees women as victimized by our culture.

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.

The man they really need to consult is, once again, Cardinal Newman, who leveled devastating artillery against the argument from design, especially in The Idea of a University, which despite its well - deserved fame has long gone underutilized by philosophers of religion, perhaps because his critique of their work is so devastating.

And having degrees from Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary, I am aware of the arguments in favor of the «only men must teach the Bible» view.

To short - circuit that long argument, I would say that it comes down to the ancient belief that men and women are different.

I have just recently spoken to a prominient leader within the evangelical community in Scotland about such and his use of rhetoric, and misrepresentation of others and their views by straw man arguments.

So the the religious leaders» argument is that they'd rather send in manned jets so that if one gets shot down MORE people can die?

These words and the concepts associated with them were very useful for intellectual purposes, but they made no contribution to life, and Levin suddenly felt he was in the position of a man who had exchanged a warm fur coat for a muslin blouse, and who the first time he finds himself in the frost is persuaded beyond question, not by arguments but by the whole of his being, that he's no better than naked and is inevitably bound to perish miserably.16

And Yahweh's argument, in addition to what we have already noted, is that he has been operative in history and still is the vital force in the affairs of men.

The assertion that the gospel had a «proof peculiar to itself» was not a confession of unreasoning faith but an argument that commended itself to thoughtful men and women.

To cite two texts: In a 1929 article, «Birth Control: The Perverted Faculty Argument», Henry Davis says, ``... the contraceptive act between a husband and wife is mortally sinful, chiefly, it would seem because it is a grave abuse of a faculty, a gross perversion of a means — the act of marital intercourse - which is given by Nature, that is, God, to man for the immediate purpose of generation».

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.