Sentences with phrase «sake of argument if»

For sake of argument if we treat a company as if it were a government then a workers cooperative would most closely resemble Communism.

You can't really separate these books but for the sake of argument if some want to ascribe to a particular point you can't just take a few lines out of one or more chapters and say that's it.

Not exact matches

Even if we were to agree (even for sake of argument) that a Board of Directors» main obligation is to serve the interests of the organization and its shareholders, that still leaves open this important question: should a Board of Directors seek the best outcomes for the organization and its shareholders, or should it seek justice for it and for them?

If, for the sake of argument, evolution is true, then creationism is false.

But for arguments sake, if it did, out of the trillions of civilizations that must inhabit the universe, why would it like to read a novel by Steven King?

I'm going to go out on a limb here «Bottom Line», and assume for the sake of argument that you've never been dead.How else can the readers of this blog ascertain how asinine your comment is if you haven't?

For the sake of argument, if the article (which I didn't read) used only words that left no room for doubt (in a sense saying «We know with 100 % certainty that...), would you accept the conclusions?

If their argument wasn't so flimsy, this might even seem like an outright attack on faith (however, given the nature of the whole list, it's really hard to take it seriously, and see it as anything more than a bad hot take for a sake of a hot take.)

Ninjas are invisible and silent as the night, and, for the sake of argument, if a ninja ever did rob a Holiday Inn, no one would be the wiser.

But even if I do for the sake of argument, the assertion is that that morality is caused by god which is nothing but a claim.

I know of none of my atheist friends who celebrate Easter with bunnies and eggs and know of no Christians who don't except maybe the JW's, but for the sake of argument I will concede that if they do then yes, they are also co-opting a pagan holiday.

Another one would be what if a nation wanted to get rid of all the Jewish people (for the sake of argument).

For arguments sake, i agree, all who say life has purpose only if you give it purpose are saying, what i beliveve is not the same as what you believe, but really, we all have a set of ideas of which we should do but never do them, or if we're thrill seekers do the opposite.

Even if we were to grant (for the sake of argument only) that God could or would intervene in this way in earthly affairs, God's resurrection of this one person can not logically support the likelihood of salvation for the rest of us: (A) It can not prove that God is able to save us from death and grant us eternal life; (B) it can not guarantee that God is interested in doing this; and (C) it does not even show that God will forgive our sins.

For the sake of argument, even if Junia were an apostle «in the sense of having seen the risen Lord» it doesn't mean he / she was in authority as an Apostle in the Church.

But even if they were, just for the sake of argument even if they were, we would not more want to go back to be like them any more than we would want to go back to 1907 when all the car - lots were filled with only black Model - T Fords.

But, for the sake of argument, if there was a Glenn Beck heaven full of tea partiers goose - stepping around carrying pictures of Sarah Palin, visiting that would create some very negative emotions...

For argument's sake, if there was a creator God, his first laws have proven to be the inviolable laws of Nature.

We might even grant, if only for the sake of argument, the pro-choicers» point that pro-lifers are not sufficiently attending to other legitimate issues, including those that might prompt a mother to end her pregnancy.

Even in the period when Jerusalem was under the high priests, the Jews were nonetheless subject to foreign rule; and even if we concede for the sake of argument what notably was not true, that all the officials of the theocracy were high - minded men, still the people were never remote from the problem of what to do in face of a bad law.

If we grow out these seeds, the observable characteristics of the resulting pods will be near identical (for the sake of argument, let's say we get lucky and our cross is orange with purple spots, is Jalapeno shaped and has the heat and flavour of a Habanero — in reality this will never happen.

Whatever your argument is let's agree Wenger blameless or not, needs to go even if for the sake of just getting in someone else new.

If we sign for arguments sake the best DM money could buy, why would Coquelin, Ramsey and Wilshere who all have the talent to justifiably lock down a spot in a top - teams first XI, why would they want to stay on not getting first - team opportunities when they're at crucial stages of their development?

Even if, for argument's sake, these items were in fact records, they would be exempt from release, Lubanko added, quoting from the statute, because their disclosure «would jeopardize» the executive chamber's ability «to guarantee the security of its information technology assets.»

The desert Southwest; it is a lot of area and it sounds like a huge amount of area, but actually there is a map in the article that shows five or six — if you divide it up just for argument sake — into five or six massive installations, they would fit very nicely in few different parts of the desert Southwest, where of course the solar radiation is highest all year long.

But for sake of argument: What would you do if it weren't?

For the sake of the argument — «if pigs could fly,» as Wilk puts it, he says he'll accept their data, their theory, and other predictions that can be derived from them.

But if you're, you know just for argument -LSB-'s] sake, if you are 20 feet from the ship, but you're in the same, going exactly the same velocity as the ship, ordinarily well, you would be up the creek, so to speak; because with nothing to accelerate against you would just parallel the path of the ship until you run out of oxygen or starve to death, whatever.

«Let's just say for argument's sake that if you exhibit that neural sensitivity to social rejection in daily life, you could be having these increases in inflammation throughout the course of a day or week,» Slavich said.

If we suppose for the sake of argument, however, that it does represent something unhealthy, there is no reason to connect it to the consumption of meat.

Whenever I ask one of these nuts if they, for the sake of argument, could be gay (providing they are straight, and most would identify as such) for just one day, they get all flustered.

«For the sake of argument, some of those people that did pirate Super Meat Boy could have bought the game if piracy didn't exist but there is no actual way to calculate that lost revenue.

If I were, for the sake of argument, influencing someone in charge of education in the United States, then I'd say identify top performers and get them, without relinquishing control of their own schools, to take over underperforming schools and create partnerships.

Even if I agree for the sake of argument that books are precious snowflakes, it doesn't follow that Amazon is therefore obliged to sell them at all, much less sell them on equal terms to the books of Publishers who do have a contract.That this argument gets any coverage at all underscores the desperate need for improved media literacy in this country.

For argument sake, if my son decides to go into the trades and only uses $ 18,000, do I still get to use the full $ 7,200 for EAP withdrawals, or would I be penalized at the end of the 3 years because he only used half of the fund.

Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that perfection is a constant, most purebred dogs are bred for show.

I explained how even if it could be proven that 60 % of feral cats die prematurely due to disease or injury (which is by no means no true, but postulated for the sake of argument), it would still be unethical to kill any individual cat because not only do that cat's inherent rights ethically prohibit it, but you do not know if that particular cat will ever succumb to such a fate, let alone when.

Third, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that they are right, if we assume that not a single No Kill community exists, what difference would that make?

that's nearly # 1000 to shell out for a console that will be out of date in a few years time if you follow the tradition of the console cycle, and just a year after I've forked out for an Xbox One S (for arguments sake).

For the sake of argument, some of those people that did pirate Super Meat Boy could have bought the game if piracy didn't exist but there is no actual way to calculate that lost revenue.

If he's right (and yes, I noticed the link to research that he isn't, but this is for sake of argument), then his method should, or at least plausible could, absent other mitigating factors, lead to increases in carbon storage in those grasslands — not necessarily at the scale he claimed on TED, but conceivably pointed in the right direction.

Even if, for argument's sake, there were to emerge a broad consensus that the impacts of SRM could be accurately predicted (which seems highly unlikely and endlessly contestable), the social and political impacts of such an intervention are essentially un-knowable, meaning that whatever level of physical scientific certainty or engineering know - how we might gain in this area, the whole enterprise will remain radically unpredictable and risky.

If there are 1000 stations in Europe with an average temperature of 15C, and 10 stations in North Africa with an average temperature of 25C, then if you calculate the average as T = (15 * 1000 + 25 * 10) / (1000 +10) = 15.099 C you run into Simpson's paradox, but if you do it correctly [assuming for the sake of the argument that Europe and North Africa have the same area], then you get the correct T = (15 +25) / 2 = 20If there are 1000 stations in Europe with an average temperature of 15C, and 10 stations in North Africa with an average temperature of 25C, then if you calculate the average as T = (15 * 1000 + 25 * 10) / (1000 +10) = 15.099 C you run into Simpson's paradox, but if you do it correctly [assuming for the sake of the argument that Europe and North Africa have the same area], then you get the correct T = (15 +25) / 2 = 20if you calculate the average as T = (15 * 1000 + 25 * 10) / (1000 +10) = 15.099 C you run into Simpson's paradox, but if you do it correctly [assuming for the sake of the argument that Europe and North Africa have the same area], then you get the correct T = (15 +25) / 2 = 20if you do it correctly [assuming for the sake of the argument that Europe and North Africa have the same area], then you get the correct T = (15 +25) / 2 = 20C.

If we accept that global warming will be a net negative impact for the global economy and human well - being (I don't accept that, but will proceed on that assumption for the sake of argument here), policies will have to be sustainable for many decades to a century.

For the sake of argument, if that form is assumed to be sufficiently accurate, the question becomes — How should lambda be determined?

Please imagine, just for the sake of the argument try to imagine for a moment what would happen, if in the long run climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere turns out to be much lower than implicated by some current computational climate models.

If you «pause» it means warming may resume at some time in the future (or perhaps even cooling... but let's not go there for the sake of this argument).

Even if we grant — for the sake of argument — that Parncutt's argument proceeds logically, it proceeds from a basis where something like consequentialism has been presupposed.

However — and I know this may be a difficult step, but give it a try just for the sake of argument — if it turns out all these scientists are right and it's you wot's wrong, and we've followed your prescription and done absolutely nothing about reducing emissions for another decade or two, then the measures we'll need to take then will be much much more expensive and economically damaging for those poor people you're lying awake at night worrying about.

Your arguments can only improve if you actually learn the laws they are currently flouting, and while I fully understand your lack of respect for «authority» — while respectfully suggesting that it edges well over into iconoclasm for its own sake when you make statements that violate the experimentally verified laws clearly explained in every thermo textbook.