Sentences with phrase «people arguing against it»

There's a fair share of this latter phenomenon on the anti-ABS side as well, people arguing against it so convinced of their position that one wonders whether they are motivated their own pocket - book and lawyers» current «monopoly» of ownership.

It's the same issue raised by people arguing against blowing up an asteroid, that it turns a single small cannonball into a very large shotgun blast with the same total energy being delivered and delivering it to the atmosphere is still a problem.

Would you say that the people arguing against vaccinations should be afforded the same immunity that you feel you deserve?

The people arguing against you believe this is a balanced team that the defense should only be asked to keep the opponent's score low allowing the high powered offense to do its job any more than that would be a bonus.

Back then (if two and a half years ago can be considered «back then») my topic was controversial with many people arguing against it.

Watching people argue against evolution is perplexing.

Every year certain people argue against the flu vaccine on the grounds that the flu is normal and common.

People argue against it by saying, «Hey, you know the carbon footprint of flying food thousands of miles is ridiculous so we should grow [things] locally» but the counter argument is, but if you can grow so much wheat sufficiently in Kansas even including the transportation for thousands of miles it's still more efficient in terms of resources.

Some people argue against the overall replay value, but as a long - time player of the series, even if you achieve «Silent Assassin» in a mission, chances are there's another creative way of taking down your target you haven't yet tried.

Of course, very few people argue against the idea that copyright can be a useful tool to encourage authors to create and publishers to publish.

Not exact matches

During the meeting with executives Thursday, Cohn argued against taking action, according to a person in the room.

• Brittany Laughlin of Lattice VC argues against zero - tolerance policies because, she writes, the bar to report misconduct is currently too high, and we should give people a chance to fix their mistakes:

Kimmel has since actively railed against Obamacare repeal efforts, arguing that various proposals being debated by the law's opponents would gut protections for people like Billy born with pre-existing conditions, either by rolling back Obamacare's mandated insurance benefits for certain health conditions or allowing states to set up rules that would let insurers charge sick people more for their coverage.

«If you're arguing against A.I., then you're arguing against safer cars and being able to better diagnose people when they're sick,» Zuckerberg said Sunday.

Morneau sat silently near the end of hour - long session as person after person approached the microphones in the room to argue against the measures.

By contrast, LGBTQ advocates argue that violence and bias against transgender people is a very real problem exacerbated by prejudicial laws.

Still, Khodorkovsky is urging people to «get off the couch» and vote next month, arguing against a boycott like that suggested by Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

People are actually arguing in favour or against the HST based on how many jobs it will create or destroy?!»

At one point during the transition, Kushner had argued internally against giving Conway a White House role, these two people said.

For centuries, he argues, courts in the United Kingdom, United States, and elsewhere recognized that wealthy people could use third - party lawsuits as a weapon against those they disliked — and had rules in place to prevent this power from being abused.

Some argue using a permission blockchain would help as it would only allow a few people to fully access the records, but the possibility of having a government official (or just the regular public) know how an individual vote goes against the premise of free and fair elections.

Libertarian populism seeks to reverse that impression by arguing that higher taxes, greater regulation, and big government generally work on behalf of the politically connected and against the average person.

First question should always be, it is not just the rational science these people are arguing against, it also the numerous other faiths, many of whom have their own doctrines of how the world started.

As I said, I don't think people are arguing against the site, per se, but against the ideology / philosophy that requires gender segregation.

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as «1» due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves «7» because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

People who argue against evolution rarely understand exactly what it is.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think people are arguing against the website itself, but the idea it represents, i.e. gender segregation.

Its amazing how we argue against something deemed to help our citizens, yet if a gun control bill was up for debate people would be in arms (pun intended) about their right to own guns.

Stop trying to argue with people who have hardened their hearts against God.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing Satan loves, obviously from Martin's comments because it gives haters and ignorant people ammunition to argue against God and church.

It says that 100,000 people are alive today because of the country's laws on abortion and argue that «a world which continues to pit the rights of a woman against the rights of her unborn child is not advancing human rights.»

People will argue against that statement, but it boils down to will.

Speaking in cultural terms, M.M. Thomas argues that a «post-modern humanism which recognizes the integration of mechanical, organic and spiritual dimensions, can develop creative reinterpretation of traditions battling against fundamentalist traditionalism and actualize the potential modernity to create a dynamic fraternity of responsible persons and people».12

I'm not saying the unnecessary suffering of animals is good, or moral, but rather pointing out that your perspective on the subject is no more rational, no more based on fact, than that of the people you are arguing against.

I wish someone had told that to the Reformers, some of whom were burned for translating the Bible into their native languages so people could read it, who argued for salvation by grace against a salvation by works Gospel, who argued for Jesus as the son of God, uncreated, instead of just one among many of «God's» created beings.

For what it is, we could produce millions of people who would argue that they prayed for X and got X or something even better when the odds were against such an outcome.

People need to weigh their passionate feelings with careful thought before they chip away at the inviolability of individual conscience, and those who believe it can be legislated against should beware of hypocrisy; they are often the same people who argue that when it comes to abortion, a woman's own mind — her individual conscience and reason — outweighs what used to be called «conventional morality.&People need to weigh their passionate feelings with careful thought before they chip away at the inviolability of individual conscience, and those who believe it can be legislated against should beware of hypocrisy; they are often the same people who argue that when it comes to abortion, a woman's own mind — her individual conscience and reason — outweighs what used to be called «conventional morality.&people who argue that when it comes to abortion, a woman's own mind — her individual conscience and reason — outweighs what used to be called «conventional morality.»

Statements like the NCCB's well - known 1983 pastoral on peace and the Catholic bishops of France's 1979 declaration do not emphasize the doctrines of creation and human persons but argue against abortion by granting priority to the gospel.

More than 100 black Secret Service agents argued that the security agency discriminated against black people by promoting less - qualified candidates over them from 1995 to 2005.

If I were to argue against abortion the way you argue for it, I would point to late term abortions, regretted abortions, or the abuse of abortion by people who use it as a form of birth control, etc..

It's relieving to see some sarcastic humor once in awhile against people who so vehemently argue their opinions.

Childress argued that war is fundamentally morally problematic, as the killing in war goes against the prima facie duty of benevolence, which rules out killing or inflicting harm on other persons: «[B] ecause it is prima facie wrong to injure or kill others, such acts demand justification.»

We are related to people who argued against women's ordination.

The Editor in the Preface says that the Tract «polemises against a form of narrow sectarian Secularism which refuses to be sensitive to tradition and faith» and argues that Secularism needs to be rethought taking religious faith seriously, that «only then can Secularism reclaim the ideological space which Fundamentalists are threatening to take over, only then can Secularists capture the minds of the people» (p.vi).

I think he would argue against stoning people to death for working on sundays.

† Christians do not really exist, they just pretend that they believe in God and argue with non-religious people while not knowing very much at all regarding Christianity or the meaning of the bible and disregarding half of what the bible says only to strongly vocalize their stance against the other half of the bible that is against things that they either do not understand or that do not affect them personally.

If the monument brings comfort and peace to people you really can not argue against it.

When I write about non-violence, people sometimes say to me, You can't argue against God.

In arguing against the possibility of attaining to a neutral standpoint on matters of concern to religious persons, one begins with the axiom that all human activity — and so, by extension, all scholarly activity, all religious activity, and all interaction among serious religious persons — both implies and evinces a commitment to some particular metaphysic, some view as to the way things are and as to how human activity should proceed in that context.

There is no arguing with a person that chooses against Christ, but there is prayer.