Sentences with phrase «right kind of argument»

Stated thus, the argument at hand seems to be the right kind of argument for capital punishment.

By pretending that you're not, you're being untrue to yourself and you're not framing the right kind of argument.

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.

Not exact matches

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

Pius XII, in a further clarification of the standard argument, holds that when the State, acting by its ministerial power, uses the death penalty, it does not exercise dominion over human life but only recognizes that the criminal, by a kind of moral suicide, has deprived himself of the right to life.

Nowhere does he set forth the argument of the book, and on natural rights jurisprudence generally, he uses Arkes as a kind of foil for his own reservations — again, without ever delineating Arkes» position.

However, right next to thestatements quoted, we read a passage in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians that leads us to see differently Paul's teaching as a whole: «I wish that all were as I myself am, [he repeats his favorite argument for abstaining from marriage]- but each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind, and one of another» (1 Cor 7:7).

Signing, shaking hands, shooting the shit, engaging in political discourse with the American People, OK maybe having one or two heated arguments with an occasional fucking dicktard who apparently needs to turn an animated conversation into a fistfight because that's just the kind of self - medicating ballsack he is, I can't say any more right now according to my lawyer.

He told Progress magazine: «Let's be clear: We don't think that Ukip's right, not on immigration and not on Europe - so the first thing you've got to be really careful of doing is... saying things that suggest that they're kind of justified in their policy because what you're actually going to do is validate their argument when in fact you don't believe in it.»

No arguments there, as the MX5 is small, light, and puts up the right kind of competition to other, more expensive sports car.

On the one hand, it is very important for the political right to have this echo chamber out there — and the arguments generated by conservative think tanks would interact with the biased reasoning processes that are the subject of my piece in a kind of one - two combination.

And through conversations with others in the growing climate justice movement, I began to see all kinds of ways that climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change — how it could be the best argument progressives have ever had to demand the rebuilding and reviving of local economies; to reclaim our democracies from corrosive corporate influence; to block harmful new free trade deals and rewrite old ones; to invest in starving public infrastructure like mass transit and affordable housing; to take back ownership of essential services like energy and water; to remake our sick agricultural system into something much healthier; to open borders to migrants whose displacement is linked to climate impacts; to finally respect Indigenous land rights — all of which would help to end grotesque levels of inequality within our nations and between them.

Those who can not are ought to look into their hearts and ask themselves: «If my cause is really so powerful and right and true, how come its response to any kind of criticism is not to engage with it through argument but merely to try to silence it with censorship, appeals to authority, crude character assassination and establishment cover ups?»

Yet one can perhaps make a different kind of argument, more policy based and purposive, that if people fear loss of rights then they will not naturalize, and so integration will be hindered.

In sum, and on all of the three arguments (express trust, CAPL 1990 deemed trust, and the right to take in kind) LMP was out of luck and had no claim on the holdback monies.

If you think this line of argument seems silly, would someone please explain how this law is any different from the proposals of the so - called «gun grabbers» to require law - abiding gun owners to register their weapons, and to restrict the right to ownership of certain kinds of weapons that are clearly designed only to kill human beings on an industrial scale?

If I'm the kind of person that blames and criticizes and points out what the other person isn't doing right in a fight or in an argument or moment of disconnection, I can start to see, «Oh my God, that makes my partner feel like they're not enough and they feel powerless, and they feel awful inside.