Sentences with phrase «reason than the way»

In any case, the designation «pit bull» has proven a loose and arbitrary one, often resulting in the deaths of dogs for no other reason than the way they look.

From the U.K. to Canada to the U.S., dogs are being seized and put down for no other reason than the way they look.

Not exact matches

So far the loose populist coalition that swept Trump to the White House has shown more bark than bite on Wall Street, Silicon Valley and «big business» in general — but there's reason to believe it won't necessarily stay that way:

I'm hoping Essential makes it if for no other reason than to see what additional excitement Rubin causes along the way.

«Shale is the reason we're not trading over $ 100 a barrel, way more than $ 100 a barrel,» said Francisco Blanch, global head of commodities and derivatives at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Over the years, Virgin has competed well in markets where incumbents do business in a particular way for no other reason than «that's the way we've always done it.»

If autonomous cars are safer than human - driven ones, the reasoning goes, we'll save more lives by bringing the technology to market as quickly as we can, even if there are a few fatal crashes along the way.

That's also part of the reason that a few companies, including Jiff, are trying to separate from the pack by becoming platforms for wellness programs, providing a way to integrate offerings from multiple vendors, rather than focusing solely on serving up wellness services themselves.

Another reason for the acquisition: Waze is a cheaper way to collect up - do - date navigation information than Google currently uses.

Notice the reason why I do it this way rather than the «normal» way most other economists would.

Their business model is a digital advertising business model, and the reason why Facebook and Google had more than a 90 percent share of growth in the digital advertising space last year is that they can target advertising in a way that no other site can because they have a 360 - degree view of user activity, meaning they're tracking users across the web and therefore know much more about their users than anyone else.

The cuts in the GST / HST were done solely for political reasons, and in no way helped Canada weather the global economic downturn better than most other countries, as alleged by Mr. Boessenkool.

He went on to say that in his opinion «Canadians culturally are quite a bit more utilitarian, more conservative, more practical in some ways [than Americans]» which he points to as being the main reason why initial interactions with Tilt by Canadian users have been less robust than Tilt's experience with American users of the platform.

The entire Groove blog is a content hack in itself (like several other startups, they've begun to publicize their metrics in a compellingly transparent way) but this call to action was a part of the reason they grew their blog's email list to more than 5,000 subscribers in just five weeks.

It probably won't make Wynne any more popular in Harper's eyes, and will be one more reason for him to avoid meeting with her, but it could also be the first shot in a Supreme Court challenge of the legislation, which could conceivably be much faster - tracked than it would be if we had to wait for a Charter challenge the traditional way, which could conceivably help save lives, going back to the thrust of the Bedford decision in the first place.

Sometimes buying sooner rather than later is the preferred way to go, for a variety of reasons.

With current social networks, users do not control their data and can have their accounts removed without reason — The blockchain is more than an uncensorable way to send money, it's an uncensorable way to store data — Memo is an experiment leveraging the blockchain's data storing capabilities.

Can you give me a «truth» that has been found any other way than by the use of reason?

All of these things that «reason» says are wrong, which is why we should do what Galileo did, and see how the world REALLY works, rather than the way Aristotle approached it, which was to simply think about how things SHOULD work.

Why, there's thousands of different «denominations» even within the major faiths, and no faith has any way to prove that their reasoning is better than that of any other faith.

I can't think of any worse reason to marry anyone, than marriage being the only way to get them to sleep with me.

For reasons more litigious than pastoral, I suspect, he said to us: «If there is any way you can avoid being a pastor, than please do so.»

in some ways memory is a better key to the nature of experience than perception, not only because, by the time we have used a datum of perception, it will already have been taken over by memory, but for the additional reasons: (a,) in memory there is less mystery concerning what we are trying to know than there is in perception [i.e., «our own past human experiences»]; also (all) the temporal structure of memory is more obvious.

The reason I ask your opinion initially is because I think there is a better way, today, for the creator of the universe to make him / her / it's self known to humankind, rather than to rely on a 2,000 year old story of sacrifice.

This has resulted in a way of understanding Christian faith that maximizes the «forensic» rather than the actual impact of grace and tends to contrast faith and reason, faith and works, and so on.

Since when did people of the Bronze Age were ever less intelligent or developed than we are today other than certain technological advancements, which by the way not even everything technologically speaking is necessarily more advance today it was say two thousand, three thousand, or even four thousand years ago, so I have no idea where you get that reasoning from.

He is just... great; He loves and cares about your heart far more than he cares about your deeds (the reason for his warning against bad deeds is that they can open a door to our enemy and harm us in other ways — that «s all!

I've often been told that the reason I have a problem with the idea of people suffering eternally without the chance to be saved is because my sense of justice has been perverted by my sin nature, that it only seems unfair to me because «God's ways are higher than our ways.»

In comparison with the breadth and depth of the intellectual, economic, cultural, social changes of today and tomorrow in the secular sphere, however, which also contribute to determine the task of the Church, it must even be said that the Church in its aggiornamento proceeds very slowly and cautiously, so that there is more reason to ask whether it is reacting sufficiently quickly, courageously and confidently to the future which has already begun, than to fear that it is sacrificing too quickly and in too «modernistic» a way what is old and well - tried and has stood the test.

Because the reasons for the division between the Churches are so complex, there is no other way than to discuss each single cause by itself in order to remove or at least to weaken each obstacle to unity individually.

But it is a central point for him that there is more than one way to be secular»» the camp of unbelief is deeply divided»» and for that reason he is unwilling to assert that secularism necessarily leads to the monstrous beliefs and movements that Mr. Smith describes.

But 1,000 or 10,000 people spread out over hundreds of smaller churches and ministries can do just as much ministry (and some of it in better ways, for the reasons you've mentioned) than when we're all clumped together in one big congregation.

For him, our experience as we experience it is not given in God's conscious experience, it is known indirectly by God, albeit perfectly (since God's reasoning can not fail), and God wants it that way; «When God intuits me, I am not a part of him, but he wills that I should be other than himself, yet known by him.

I would think the reason for Muslims living in that way has more to do about culture than the Qu «ran.

You are applying human characteristics to a divine being, that doesn't work.God is more complex than that, you are running a shell game and calling it reason, you are, in this instance and for the cited reason, wrong.God is not a man, his ways are so far above mans ways, they can not be comprehended.You can not reduce God, and cite that as proof.

In that way how is your statement any different than those African Americans who state that the only reason that they will vote for Obama is because he is African American?

Turns out I apparently drank for no more complicated a reason than that I simply loved the way it made me feel.

But man is more able to tend toward God through amor, drawn passively in a way by God himself, than he can lead himself to God by means of his own reason [ratio), which pertains to the character [ratio) of dilectio, as said above.

Here she encountered pressure to choose: the literary classicists understood their task to be «philological and to some extent aesthetic» rather than philosophical, while the ethical theories she encountered in studying philosophy were in different ways and for different reasons «hostile to literature.»

If the followers of Jesus, for any particular reasons, were to regard Jesus as at least the equal of Elijah, then the knowledge of the way their master had died called for something more specific than the simple claim that God had «taken» him.

He did all this in a society which, while far less secular than our own, was almost equally corrupt, and there is no reason why his methods can not be applied in a similar way today.

We may, by such reasoning, justify our use of any means to achieve what we think are good ends on the assumption that — since history is a perennial tragedy, and collective actions are always on a lower ethical level than individual actions — we are not obligated to strive for the highest ideals possible, or to present an alternative to the usual way of the world.

Say: «Come, let me convey unto you what G - D has [really] forbidden to you: «Do not ascribe divinity, in any way, to anything (or anyone) beside HIM; and [do not offend against but, rather,] do good unto your parents; and do not kill your children (born or unborn) for fear of poverty --[for] it is WE who shall provide sustenance for you as well as for them; and do not commit any shameful deeds, be they open or secret; and do not take any human being's life -[the life] which G - D has declared to be sacred - otherwise than in [the pursuit of] justice: this has HE enjoined upon you so that you might use your reason; and do not touch the substance of an orphan — except to improve it - before he comes of age.»

I suspect the reality was that he didn't deliberately go out of the way to annoy someone by hindering their going about their livelihood or tire out his dad for no other reason than getting a rise out of them for sadistic pleasure.

Its not Gods reasoning its human reasoning and even the Bible says Gods ways are higher than our ways.

I am no Scholar but, I believe God has the power to change prophecy the way that he did with Hezekiah, his intentions for a perfect people in the beginning changed due to disobedience so who's to say our men or intended leadership has overall been disobedient, and many women have been forced to lead and in that leading women have been more obedient.We all need each other if my husband was a pastor and I'm his help mate if he for some reason can't teach or preach who else other than myself would be the closest to him.I don't believe GOD changes he's always the same but, he does have the power to make changes and he does not need our permission to do so, instead of debating back and forth over our version of the Bible we should be sure we have the Holy Spirit and real relationship with GOD because he will reveal to us his truths but, please know he's not the author of confusion

After reading the article, I came away with the notion Mr Blake believes one needs a loftier reason for liking an author than a good story and a pleasing way of presenting it in order to like it.

In our new aims of education for the 1980's and beyond, therefore, we shall have to dedicate ourselves to bringing back, among other things, the civilized use of language (both written and oral), a sensitivity to beauty, powers of analytical reasoning, the intellectual vision of ourselves as historical creatures, the ability to cognitively articulate ideas rather than let communication skills courses degenerate into merely «touchie - feelie» experiences of «affirming the other,» and finally, a sensitivity to the nuances, complexities, and ambiguities of meanings.7 In this way, and only in this way, our educational system will equip its students for the future with an intellectual vision comprised of both knowledge and foresightful adaptability to environmental changes.

In a few thousand years of recorded history, we went from dwelling in caves and mud huts and tee - pees, not understanding the natural world around us, or the broader universe, to being able to travel through space, using reason to ferret out the hidden secrets of how the world works, from physics to chemistry to biology, we worked out the tools and rules underpinning it all, mathematics, and now we can see objects that are almost impossibly small, the very tiniest building blocks of matter, (or at least we can examine them, even if you can't «see» them because you're using something other than your eyes and photons to view them) to the very farthest objects, the planets circling other, distant stars, that are in their own way, too small to see from here, like the atoms and parts of atoms themselves, detected indirectly, but indisputably THERE.

That's the way the human tale of desire begins — with blood and a hunger for taking from others what they have for no other reason than that they have it.