Sentences with phrase «of full argument»

It is to be hoped that an occasion will arise before the deadline imposed for the implementation of the Mediation Directive when a court will be enabled to determine, after the hearing of full argument, whether a present shortfall in the protection afforded to the confidentiality of the mediation process should be remedied by the recognition of a new common law privilege, tailored to this new dispute resolution process.

Not exact matches

Gaining perspective is the most fundamental aspect of progression; and because I'm a huge nerd at heart, I believe reading full - fledged books (with sound arguments and universal wisdom) is one of the best ways to combat the wealth of digital misinformation we're faced with today.

If that's your reaction, the complete post is worth a read in full, but the essence of Gabriel's argument is that, «rushing and being late are two sides of the same coin.

Basically, when writing essays, or my master's thesis, I had to construct an argument that could withstand someone telling me I was full of crap.

It's a more complicated argument, but the flip side is that employees may not want to work full - time hours anyway because, under the economics of Obamacare, they can bring home the same amount of money working part time as they did full time — and still get benefits.

That argument is taken from the position of the employer, usually the small - business owner who has to adjust her growth plans to not cross the 50 - worker, full - time threshold that requires companies to provide qualifying health plans to its workers or face the penalties known officially as the «shared responsibility payments.»

The eight - page letter written by Trump's lawyer, Joanna Hendon, accuses the Justice Department of acting in «an aggressive, intrusive, and unorthodox manner» in an attempt to «eliminate the president's right to a full assertion of every privilege argument available to him.»

The arguments are that while Mondays people «dread» the thought of being back to work for the week, Tuesdays is when «work mode» is in full swing.

Taken together, we believe these factors present a compelling argument why investors should exit all of the electronic gold products specified at the beginning of this article, and convert the proceeds into physical gold and / or non-Deep State - controlled equities of companies in which they have full confidence that managements are working for them, not the bullion banks.

Jacoby's occasion for recycling this tired truism is David Gelernter's new book, America - Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats), which he thinks is short on arguments and full of shrill right - wing clichés about tenured radicals and rootless intellectuals.

The book consists of ten chapters of about twelve pages each, and although its argument is at times subtle, allusive, and demanding of full and total concentration, it also marches briskly along.

(2) Abstraction from the actual antecedent world of conditions which may fit the requirements of a hypothetico - deductive argument precludes the possibility of accounting for the emergence of a given novel event in its full particularity.

Halphen's argument runs like this: (1) by the end of the eighth century, Charlemagne had emerged as master of the West; (2) under these conditions, it was to be expected that a more general title should be added to his collection, to reflect his full power, when local conditions permitted; (3) local conditions in Rome in December, 800, demanded the intervention of an Emperor; and (4) Byzantine imperial power was at that time temporarily disrupted and incapable of intervening in Rome.

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.

You presented your argument yesterday, and it was full of holes.

While I would hesitate to engage in a full - out debate of theism vs. atheism on this forum for reasons that I have already stated, I would be interested in hearing your response to the traditional ontological and moral arguments in favor of the existence of God as well as the argument from contingency.

To say that it is not moral for man to do it but then say it is moral for god to do the same (or even more extreme action) means that you believe in divine command theory (look it up) which is a very dangerous concept and the argument is full of holes.

In other words, I make the choice to do something that might alter my physical being if something goes wrong... can I make the birth control argument, since birth control is not 100 % full proof, that this gear is cheaper than the medical cost of my injuries if I fall?

With full appreciation for Miss Krook's exaltation of the meaning of sexual love her argument is incomplete.

It's the lying and deception that can destroy trust in these situations more than almost anything else, and the second episode even makes it a point to try and get that across through slapstick humor, until it ditches that initial argument altogether and starts becoming a wacky comedy in full with all of the usual trappings.

This «orthogenetic» view of animal evolution is gradually becoming common ground among scientists; but it only achieves full validity, in terms of my argument, to the extent that it implies a continuous psychic «chain» going back to the beginning of life.

«Full and free discourse» is, in other words, a summary expression of the internal conditions of discourse noted earlier: equal freedom of all participants to advance and contest any claim and the arguments for it, and uncompromised commitment on the part all participants to seek the truth.

A full defense of this intuition as true (i.e., as «public») demands the kind of argument and modes of reflections which I have attempted in my recently completed work on systematic theology (The Analogical Imagination).

The big bang does not state that something comes from nothing, and the rest of your argument is ludicrous.This is why Bill Nye is right - a lack of scientific understanding results in a nation full of ignorance and lack of critical thinking; not good for a nation that is basically making money by being on the cutting edge of technology.

Grasping the full implications of his argument may be hard not only for strict biblicists but also for those who take the Bible seriously and study it critically.

This can be obscured as one looks at a library full of volumes on Christian doctrine or looks back at the history of Christendom with its arguments and bloody wars.

He is full of arguments and twisted by his ego.

He holds otherwise: «Successful natural - law arguments are those that argue from a particular vision of what human life is supposed to be in full development.»

Successful natural - law arguments are those that argue from a particular vision of what human life is supposed to be in full development.

Aware that this line leaves out of account the potential of the child for a full human life, Singer responds that «in a world that is already over-populated, and in which the regulation of fertility is universally accepted, the argument that we should bring all potential people into existence is not persuasive.»

Pursued with the right kind of arguments and with sufficient vigor, an escape from the «exemptions ghetto» can bring us out into an open field of religious freedom in full — and of moral freedom in full for all, thanks to the indispensable leadership role of religious conscience, and the recognition of the duty of men and women to obey God before any authority of the state.

My argument is not for some holy campaign, as Bushman suggests, but for a good ol' liberal arts education as most conducive to the full exercise of divine intelligence.

Full debate requires that the argument stretch to the ultimate ideal by which all activities of the state ought to be informed, and this means that citizens should be free to advance and defend any religion they find convincing.

This argument is all over the place, full of fallacies, and poorly reasoned.

When anyone can proclaim a religious belief without any way of proving them «wrong», then it's «anything goes» and your argument becomes full of holes.

Fairfield Osborn in Our Plundered Planet gives a less optimistic analysis, but makes the same argument that intelligent planning is imperative for the full use of the resources we have.12 Advances in medical science are so dramatic we need only to mention them.

But if philosophical inquiry thus discovers contingent aspects in God's full actuality, it also discovers the intrinsic limits of its own inquiry into the mystery of God, for no amount of ingenious argument can deduce the concrete, historical character of that which happens to be, but which could have been otherwise.

When we familiarize ourselves with only one side of the debate (typically the side ultimately found to be just) we miss the full depth of the argument and, worse yet, slip into a sort of historical amnesia that allows us to believe we too would have chosen the side of good on account of its seemingly obvious virtue.

I wish I could explain his reasoning on this, but you really must read the chapters for yourself to grasp the full weight of his argument.

Indeed, their full meaning is likely to become more apparent in the future than at the time of the book's first appearance, as thinkers from other world traditions engage its arguments.

Part of the problem with the way I am writing «Close Your Church for Good» is that these individual blog posts don't carry the full argument and train of thought the way a chapter in a book does.

Indeed, there is considerable merit to the argument that Dole's lukewarm approach to late - term abortions and other social issues failed to mobilize the full potential of the traditionalist vote.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

But, for the sake of argument, if there was a Glenn Beck heaven full of tea partiers goose - stepping around carrying pictures of Sarah Palin, visiting that would create some very negative emotions...

One of the strongest arguments in recent years for abolishing the death penalty has arisen, not from the moral prohibition against the taking of life, but from the fact that with rare exceptions those who are executed are people who lack the means to secure good legal assistance, or lack the educational background to make full use of such assistance, or lack the social status which brings the case to public attention.11

Now it is central to the whole point of David Novak's argument that this entire strategy is founded on a most fundamental error, whose formulation we must cite in full, adding italics to highlight its centrality: «Theologically, the error here is that revelation is essentially reduced to the supreme awareness of an order already present in creation.»

Robert Benne's critique of Mitri Raheb's lecture on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict («Political Supersessionism,» March) is full of claims and insinuations, but bereft of substantial arguments.

According to the epistemological argument, on the ancestral chain model one can not have full - blown epistemic acts wherein a chain of reasoning in thought through and a conclusion drawn.

Our Christian hearts, runs the (usually impassioned) argument, compel us to grant full moral and legal equality to gay and lesbian people; our Christian faith, comes the (usually impassioned) rebuttal, compels us to cleave, above all, to the word of God.

@Frogist If knowing the full story and background of someones opinion or argument means I am a conspiracy theorist than you need to look up the meaning of the words bud, sorry but you FAIL!