Sentences with phrase «seen arguments being made»

I've also seen arguments being made that despite his playing position being in jeopardy, perhaps he should be kept on to use his knowledge and experience on the game, in a leadership role as club captain.

Still, I see the argument you're making, and for what it's worth, I ran the numbers on some variations in names for 2009.

If convection and evaporation were not present, I could see the argument being made that a slight increase in Radiation having some warming effect, however convection and evaporation do exist within the Troposphere and the rate of cooling the two exhibit increases as surface temps increase.

If convection and evaporation were not present, I could see the argument being made that a slight increase in Radiation having some warming effect, however convection and evaporation do exist within the Troposphere and the rate of cooling the two exhibit increases as surface temps increase.

Not exact matches

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.

(See The Curse of Microsoft Excel) I remember long arguments with clients in one of my first businesses, where we tracked customer satisfaction by making millions of phone calls each year to consumers at home to determine how satisfied they had been with a recent experience.

Those who are convinced that some mechanism makes historically reliable valuation measures wholly irrelevant are perfectly welcome to speculate as they wish, but aside from indignant verbal arguments, we see no rigorous analysis to support that belief.

«I believe it is a matter of fundamental fairness that the American people be allowed to see both sides of the argument and make their own judgment,» Schumer wrote in a letter to the president released on Sunday.

«As to seeing every atom or whatever your bs argument, you are the one making the claim here» - And what claim was that exactly?

As to seeing every atom or whatever your bs argument, you are the one making the claim here.

I really don't understand why people who see themselves as defenders of the sacred institution of marriage make this argument, since they're basically declaring that they just see marriage as a more respectable form of prostitution.

If he now doesn't want to make the claim that mercy is essential to God, I don't see how he can make the argument that mercy should be the key to understanding the other attributes.

a) instead of * agreeing * that there are no contradictions, see if you can actually understand the argument being made (in this case: that there are NOT contradictions — especially since that is a widely held opinion of those on the opposite end of this debate).

he's saying nothing bad about h.omos.exuals, but i just showed you a passage where christians are told to kill g.ays - see how that makes his argument pretty ridiculous?

But he was so taken with the book that he wanted to see me making my arguments within this ongoing project he had been shaping.

An argument can be made that if someone came to you and said «I have a 300 lb diamond buried in my backyard.I've never seen it but I know it's there»... you'd raise an eyebrow and probably say «oooooo k» but in the back of your head your thinking this guy is nuts.

We can see how this might be true if we consider an argument about capital punishment made by Camus.

I do not see a single argument Lowe has made regarding Bergson's influence on Whitehead as beyond dispute, but I grant that Lowe's work on Whitehead has been a great service to thinkers everywhere.

Again, the point I would make about Gal 3:28 is not to see that as being about an argument for «equality» (for example women in leadership) but that it is possible to be part of the body of Christ for everyone and that you don't have to be male / Jew / free for that.

However, if the argument is made that alternative orientation is nature's response to overpopulation, then 1) we'd need to see results from that, and 2) those results would point to either an increase or decrease.

Rarely do I see anyone in these comments actually make a reasonable argument against it's teachings.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

lol, yes clay i am an atheist... i created the sun whorshipping thing to have argument against religion from a religious stand point... however, the sun makes more sense then something you can't see or feel — the sun also gives free energy... your god once did that for the jews, my gives it to the human race as well as everything else on the planet, fuk even the planet is nothing without the sun... but back to your point — yes it is very hypocritical of me, AND thats the point, every religious person i have ever met has and on a constant basis broken the tenets of there faith without regard for there souls — it seems to only be the person's conscience that dictates what is right and wrong... the belief in a god figure is just because its tradition to and plus every else believes so its always to be part of the group instead of an outsider — that is sadly human nature to be part of the group.

If I understand him correctly, he believes that by making rational arguments we can see, for example, that the owners of Hobby Lobby, the Greens, are not asking for an exemption, but demonstrating why the contraceptive mandate is not a law, and is therefore not binding on anyone.

The patristic and medieval «metaphysics of participation» (in which God is seen as the Being whose essence is to exist, rather than as one being among others) undergirds a theology and politics of communion that, George argues, late - medieval theology abandoned the overall argument in The Difference God Makes is a strongBeing whose essence is to exist, rather than as one being among others) undergirds a theology and politics of communion that, George argues, late - medieval theology abandoned the overall argument in The Difference God Makes is a strongbeing among others) undergirds a theology and politics of communion that, George argues, late - medieval theology abandoned the overall argument in The Difference God Makes is a strong one.

In keeping with Thomas Lynch, who made a similar argument a few weeks ago in the pages of this magazine, Sarat wants to televise state killing, arguing that «the public is always present at an execution» — the only question that remains is whether we are willing to see what is being done in our name.

I can't see how believing a God does or does not exist makes a church better or worse, so I was trying to get away from an argument that can't be won.

This demand of the prophetic school for humaneness is seen in Deuteronomy's plea for mercy to slaves because the Hebrews had themselves been slaves in Egypt, (Deuteronomy 15:15 [the same argument had already been made earlier, in the Book of the Covenant, Exodus 22:21.]-RRB-

Like Mehta, Lewis objected to God on the basis of the evil he saw in the world, but his conversion mirrored that of Leah's as he realised that his objection only made sense if a moral realm existed: «My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.

Again I have to ask how solid is a religious «truth» if the best argument you can make is to threaten the lives of those who criticize it, or to destroy their criticism so that it can not be heard, or seen?

or religious leaders by your own argument... so I have to make my best judgement just like you and hope it satisfies this potential being... who if he sees I tried my best should be ok with that..

@Chad «well, lets see if we can figure out why no atheist debater that I am aware of ever attempts to make that argument in a public forum of any kind.

Those of us who have made the effort to engage Mormons in friendly and sustained give - and - take conversations have come to see them as good citizens whose life of faith often exhibits qualities that are worthy of the Christian label, even as we continue to engage in friendly arguments with them about crucial theological issues.

I can definitely see why soo many people are confused as to what sin actually means in the bible... because they are not willing to read the book to make an argument valid enough

It is not my fault that people can't see the difference between that and making a firm stance and thus try to paint me into an argument that I am not making.

Besides several teams who have questions surrounding one or possibly two players, there is no squad that has so many issues heading into the final week of the transfer window... even Monaco, who have lost numerous players from their starting 11 have less controversy swirling in and around their club and they have champion's league play to contend with this season... just think of how ridiculous this situation is especially considering that we have had the same manager for over 20 years... no team should be better organized than ours... if nothing else, that should be the one advantage this team holds over all others, yet the exact opposite has occurred... this fact is even more disturbing considering the main argument against removing Wenger from his managerial position was that there was no suitable replacement and that people feared some sort of perceived drop - off if a new manager was brought into the mix... based on what we've witnessed since the time of his contract renewal a monkey with a magic eight ball could have done an adequate job... I hate to make jokes, in light of our current dilemma, but this team is so screwed up if I don't laugh about it, the only plausible response is to either cry or do something incredibly destructive... just look around this squad and try to see what our delusional manager sees that allow him to make such positive statements about our current team

You can make arguments that the Nationals should have seen this all coming, but I'm not going to agree.

the reason you don't get the goalkeeper argument is because fans in general don't know how to assess keepers we think if he makes a few saves he great, but thats not how it works, its a specialist position, where the lay man fan can't really see the defeciecies, the fact that Bob Wilson Wengers ass wiper himself cast doubts speaks volumes.i don't think Wenger will do whats required for us to push on hes not capable of it, not ruthless enough.We all know Arteta, Flamini an Diaby should be gone, but will they be gone thats the question.If they are still in our squad next season then Wenger has failed us again like the last 10 years

To be honest Fred I'm P off with this site im100 % sure Spurs fans are on here or why would someone want a left back at CB, either Spurs fans or the usual Tv arsenal fans, they can't even put a decent argument, so it's easy to thumb down, there's only a few on here who I do Ramadan their posts, Caraig, Phillnosethompson, arseovertit, twig, yourself, robinvanpayslip, and a few others who make decent arguments either way, and others are just to brainwashed to see what's wrong,

I could see the argument that paying him now while the Kings are not ready to compete makes sense, however he failed to add anything meaningful to the conversation.

Also, I've seen you make this argument here and in other places where you state that the front office LUCKED INTO the position that they are in today.

We still got Chambers, Coquellin, Welbeck, Bellerin, Iwobi, time to sell all overpaid and overrated English core, if you're not convinced with my argument just make Arsenal play with all English core and you will see the results and if they really love Arsenal they will stop blackmail us about wages, they don't deserve it.Just think Wiltshire get more money than Coquellin and Bellerin combine.

FFP will be relaxed as just announced by FIFA and the cornerstone of the boards argument (which see's ALL of them make a huge profit at very little risk and very little outlay) has just crumbled into dust.

See, an argument can be made either way.

If i recall exactly we had a whole argument over the valuation of Sterling, you refuted on numerous ocassions when i stated that Sterling would cost more than 35 million the point i made over 2 months ago and still make now and im sure most fans would agree is not that gnabry is better its just he is promising talent, and for the value City paid for Raheem (which is almost criminal considering Di Maria, cost PSG less) it would have been better to see Gnabry given a run out or sign someone actually worth 50 million

So I guess I can understand both sides of this argument but what I hope for as a fan is that an agreement can be made and we can see just how far Nelson can go at Arsenal.

Simply look at the fact the team has only shipped out 10 goals over their recent run of form (with three coming in the win over Chelsea) and you see there is an argument to be made.

I'm on the left, I support the Democratic party, I detest racism (particularly as someone who has experienced its ugliness), but I get some of the arguments made by the right when it comes to language vigilance and accusation, because I've seen far too many situations when people have tried their darndest to ally with identity positions they don't share or rally behind causes that don't necessarily reflect their own subject position, only to have it backfire spectacularly because they didn't do it right or say it right.

I can see why it would be something that would appeal to the Libertarian fringe, though I could make a very strong Libertarian argument against the right of schools public and private to demand vaccinations before admission.

Actually, Anonymous, If you really READ the research that people cite when they make their argument against CIO you would see that there is not even ONE conclusive study that says that they know any longterm, negative effects of CIO.