Sentences with phrase «own arguement»

At this point then yes price appreciation is secondary bonus and we have an arguement of how and why Real Estate can be better than Growth Stocks in some scenarios and for some investors.

BTW, read Jeff Saut's recent post on Minyanville, where he endorses CalDive's margin expansion, «platform» company arguement.

So, among Christians the arguement is moot.

By replying to me and typing a counter arguement, a rational and thinking person will see those impliocations as things you have said.

It seems to me that people on both sides of this arguement have it wrong.

Am I not suppose to use that in my arguement ---- why?

Jake, I can make the same arguement against evolution.

(This next part takes some logic so brace yourself) By making that part of your arguement you are implying a connection between what you said and what I said.

Why do you keep talking about them as if it were a rational arguement against what I said?

But you, when you don't like how I pharase my arguements and debate with others; when I use what YOU consider meannest and bullying, you then have the right to use words like «Bully, arrogant, sarcastic, antagonistic attitude,» you are just the righteous DEFENDER.

The problem is that very few people what to have this rational discussion — they want to have an emotional arguement and play a game of «my god is better / kinder / bigger / badder than your god.

to all those opposed to the repeal, i would just like you to remember that there was a time when we had this same arguement about allowing females to serve.

Stop getting your arguements from answers in genesis..

I hope not, because trying to use a «positive disbelief» as the basis for your arguement is very sad indeed.

If you don't look at both sides of an arguement your wrong!

Secondly, if you are going to base your arguement on it, God only acted that way after hundreds of years of the Isrealites engaging in Baal worship that involved the blood sacrifices and canabalism of their children (and lots of other unmentionable perverted stuff).

I love how you think their fools for simply trying to do what they think is right oh and it is right its gods will and why does this automatically turn into an arguement over religion?

I absolutely respect your decision to take the steps that you feel are necessary to protect yourself, but to think that «you're a boy and I'm a girl» is a valid arguement in any context is a little absurd.

You are all fools in your pointless arguements!

thats the best arguement for any god i have ever heard of.

Like I said before chad, if you're going to quote someone who is supporting your arguement, they become your words and its on you to defend them and not slink back to the ad populem fallacy of saying smarter people than you have discussed it so it must be true.

I think her arguement is weak from a historical perspective

You certainly make a great arguement.

To show that I am not biased I will say that the arguements set forth by Jessica, Tessa, et al pretty much amount to a strawman.

But first of all, as an atheist, you have probably said the Bible is just a book of myths and lies and fairytales in the first place, so why are you basing your arguement on it?»

Chad, I can now only as.sume that if you can't look at the arguements you're making against me and apply them to yourself then you're either a much bigger idiot than I could have ever thought, the most intellectually dishonest person on the planet or you're a troll.

Mis - info, Will that be your arguement to God when you stand before Him?

So now I give you one of the keys to your claim God is a monster and you switch your arguement.

@ Asklepios417 — Gosh, my friend, your arguement is just too... WEAK.

next CHAD»S «FREE WILL» arguement.

I am not an atheist, but this kind of story could make a real good arguement for it.

The ridiculous statement that logic would lead one to toss todlers out the window is the OLD OLD Reducio Ad Absurdum arguement, regarded as invalid for thousands of years.

However, I dare any one of you to cite scripture that supports your arguement.

BTW, the tactic may silence the opposition, not because they can not think of a counter arguement, but because the absurdity does not deserve to be dignified by a serious response.

You know, Atheists have been trying too push that arguement for long time (not the part about seeing, I'm back to the point.).

---------- Now you have moved the arguement to «ideology,» and away from «theology.»

More often, it brings about arguements, disagreements, hatred, prejudice, and war.

all your arguements are in line with someone brainwashed or the like the woman who suffers from spousel abuse saying «but i love him»....

You climb on me for throwing back the same arguement that Marcel makes for homosexuality that he used to try and make his point.

Circular arguement, maybe so, but the fact remains, you are cut.

Fishion... I assume that you believe lesbianism / homosexuality are immoral becuz the Bible says so and, more importantly, what you believe the Bible to be.But can you on other grounds provide a compelling arguement to support the charge of immorality?Nobody really needs the Bible to believe that murder, stealing and lying are wrong, but there are situations that lying and stealing wd be permissable under a moral law, maybe not murder, but at least the taking of another life in war or self - defense, etc..

The context of you arguement would be -LCB- tell me if I am wrong -RCB- that it is within the natural order of things that you don't need the Bible to teach morality.

The extension arguement to this than is, do these same - sex parents not influence their child towards «being» gay?

Clearly momoya and Dari were never taught the art of debate... and one of the sure signs of a weak arguement in debate is accusation and vulgarity, Again not my words but Stephen Douglass

Then I read Donald MIller's book «Blue Like Jazz» and it flipped my trajectionary around from trying to know and debate a perfect arguement and win people over through theological submission, to wow, God not only Loves me, but He likes me?

This arguement is starting to circle itself so have the last word if you'd like.

This is hardly a fair article and in a debate this would be considered a strawman arguement.

The problem here is that legal arguements can not be used to prove or disprove it.

For example — Often used by many christians as an arguement for intolerence towards human rights... I pose that every religiously ran nation like that of Iran and Iraq are exactly what the religious in this supposedly tolerent country wish to turn this country into, where science and logically thought are frowned upon and knowledge of fairy tales are rewarded.

Why would you ever make an arguement like that?