Many scientists
now accept the premise that dogs have rich emotional lives, exhibiting a wide range of feelings including fear, anger, surprise, sadness and love.
Not exact matches
Now, if we
accept «being opposed to war for any reason» as a working definition, I would say, I do agree with some of your points in your discussion with MarkR, but disagree with much of your basic
premises.
Now one can disagree with their
premise ¯ I certainly do ¯ but if we
accept their
premise ¯ a
premise that is central to any principled argument for abolishing the requirement of sexual complementarity in defining the marriage ¯ their conclusion becomes difficult to resist.
And even if Platt is not ready to fully
accept the
premise put forth in the new paper, for
now, he says, «I can't come up with a better one.»
We know
now that this conclusion is clearly wrong but looks like common sense if one
accepts the
premises which are true.
From: http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/4377-unchanging-science-why-climate-skepticism-is-a-virtue-not-a-vice.html «Think of it this way: The
premise of catastrophe produces the conclusion that the political and economic underpinnings of Western civilization must be discarded -LSB-...]
Now, in a purely logical world, the rejection of the
premise would mean that we don't have to
accept the conclusion.