Sentences with phrase «right argument of»

It was always more likely that this measure could face more difficulty in the Lords (given the opposition of some Bishops in the earlier debates, which has been challenged by their colleagues more recently; and the traditionalist right arguments of Tebbit / Waddington on equality issues generally usually have somewhat more support in the Lords than the Commons)

Not exact matches

His lawsuit had a slightly different argument, accusing Spotify of ignoring mechanical rights — the permission to reproduce copyrighted material.

But I've yet to see a really robust version of that argument, let alone an explanation of why firing makes more sense, ethically, that this punishment alone is the right one, ethically, than all those other outcomes, or — for those who believe this is true — why he deserves everything on the menu.

On the one hand, the argument could be made that due to the nature of our content, a parody could tarnish the name of a rights holder.

So instead of jumping right to the end of your argument, start with statements or premises you know your audience will agree with.

«There would be valid accounting arguments for the costs of relinquishing that «right» as well.

The Court of Appeal rejected the arguments, saying Mars Canada had an obvious interest in defending its trademark rights, and it did sustain actual damages given that its sales were cannibalized by the grey market products.

This could actually be arguments 1 through 10, but its many nuances are being boiled down to the essence of «there's just too much of it, and most of that is because all E.U. citizens have the right to come and work here.»

Guzman's lawyers cited the a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Human Rights Watch, and congressional testimony to underscore the dangers of solitary confinement and bolster their argument to release him from it.

His argument is basically that Canada's oil is ethically preferable to the oil produced in other places, considering especially places with serious histories of human rights violations.

Harper even drew on Canadian John Humphry's drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an argument for militarizing Canadian foreign policy.

If you're like most people, you're probably thinking of a lot of arguments against this right now:

Critics from the right tend to be concerned about the content of their message, noting that successful CEO activism often advances left - leaning arguments on issues like gun control and diversity.

And it crosses over all these lines: local environmental impact, there's the climate argument, there's the First Nations rights argument, there's the stewardship argument, so it can really draw from a whole wide sector of civil society in the way that the faceless catastrophe of climate change can't.

On the day of the third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, Trump's team tested 175,000 different ad variations for his arguments, in order to find the right versions above all via Facebook.

Ver's argument essentially boils down to this: bitcoin needs to scale right now because of increased demand.

... The argument that gun control allowed the rise of Hitler has circulated among gun - rights advocates for several years.

This line of argument arrives at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

Both strongly support the pipeline — indeed, their principal argument right now seems to be which of them supports it more.

Scalia, attorney for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the lead plaintiff, opened with a smooth presentation outlining familiar arguments: the DOL lacks the authority to regulate advisors, acted in an «arbitrary and capricious» manner, and violated plaintiffs» First Amendment rights.

During the following weeks, the US calibrated its aim on China with the arguments of the large bilateral trade surplus and infringements of US intellectual property rights.

She has also been a strong voice for cooperation among progressive parties rather than for continued competition that mainly serves the interests of the Right (yes, yes, I know the argument that having many choices on your ballot is supposed to be a good thing, but the outcomes of Alberta elections suggest that in fact for progressives, it's just the opposite).

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.»

Jurors didn't buy arguments that the First Amendment protected Gawker's right to humiliate random celebrities by publishing video of their most intimate moments.

«We've got casinos in Iowa, right across the river from Omaha, and the argument [in favor of changing the law], which is persuasive, is that Nebraskans go over there and deposit all their money in Iowa.

Interestingly, virtually none of these pro-pipeline rule of law arguments mention the rights of First Nations.

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.

You do know that he has answered what was tantamount to your thesis statement / first statement of your argument, right?

The people who resisted the Civil Rights movement in the south, many of whom used religious arguments, people who classified Blacks as animals, were degraded and debased by their own actions: turning fire hoses on children, setting dogs on peaceful marchers, lynching, firebombing churches...

When this happens the argument turns into name - calling, accusations, dredging up past hurts and twisting the other person's words — all for the sake of being right.

Progressive legal theorists exploited this doctrinal disjunction to argue that the justices» opposition to economic reforms was fundamentally ideological and thus illegitimate: «If the public's evolving attitude towards liquor and lotteries had been sufficient to justify a rethinking of economic rights and federalism constraints, the argument went, then what else but the subjective policy preferences of the justices themselves could explain the Court's stubborn resistance to other, broadly popular forms of «social» legislation?»

A thorough review of the arguments for and against abstinence programs in Uganda specifically is available on the Human Rights Watch website.

The Left is not engaged in an «argument,» it is engaged in a revolution in the name of all that is just and right and good.

My argument in a nutshell: many of the people who argue for such a right don't simply mean a right to be free from others» interference; they mean subsidized....

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

if you'd actually give a hearing, you'd understand why the entire field of biblical scholarship (from left to right) is giving heed to this argument.

Regardless, it's not as nice to have the frame of a well made argument dismissed as irrelevant when I didn't quote scripture or say I'd pray for you, right?

It is a tragic error that those of us who make the «self - help» argument in internal dialogue concerning alternative - development strategies for black Americans are often construed by the political right as making a public argument for a policy of «benign neglect.»

The arguments here are, for the most part, human beings who want to be right, right in their own belief of God, Church, Religion, or Non-Believers of any or all of the above.

None of these arguments give the Israelis the right to continuously violate the basic human rights of the Palestinian people who live in abject poverty.

As a participant in that 1998 Ramsey Colloquium, a longtime supporter of the cautious use of rights language, and a frequent critic of its misuses, I was moved by Reno's arguments to ponder whether the noble post — World War II universal human - rights idea has finally been so manipulated and politicized as to justify its abandonment by men and women of good will.

But for all that it gets right, the piece contains one line of argument that Christians should be on guard against.

Of course, to put abortion in such simple, black and white terms can be shocking to some — and many pro-abortion activists would disagree, saying that a child is not human or nor a person or does not possess rights, or some other such argument.

Tenderness separated from the source of tenderness thus supports a «popular piety» that goes unexamined, a piety in which liberalism in its decline establishes dogmatic rights, rights that in an extreme» as presently in the arguments for abortion in the political sphere and for «popular culture» in the academic» become absolute dogma to be accepted and not examined.

I think I have heard the arguments mostly from the Christian Right, and others that are not of the CR, but are against abortion.

If as you say, «two wrongs [don't] make a right argument» then why not debate @Blarg's statement instead of inciting atheists condemnation of his / her arguments by indirectly making a blanket statement about how Atheist should be offended?

Sometimes these sources point in different directions — as when a right not recognized in the past becomes widely understood as fundamental — and a court has to make a judgment between the two lines of argument.

The «Moral Majority» Christian right made these exact same kinds of arguments last century when it came to inter-racial marriage.

If you are going to deny this you are in denial of reality; and strange use of capitalization will not invalidate my argument or make you right.

Steele is black, and his argument is that racial victimization games are, in the name of civil rights, turning young blacks into moral rip - off artists, and locking them into permanent inferiority of both feeling and social station.