Sentences with phrase «such arguments were made»

A classic statement of such arguments was made by Thomas Aquinas.

(Such was the case in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in McNamara v Alexander Industries) No such argument was made in this case.

Not exact matches

So while there are certainly arguments to be made in favor of a rules - based Fed over the pure discretion of the current PhD standard, such reform should not be viewed as a solution to the real issue, which is a central bank having a monopoly on money at all.

As well - outfitted as this tablet might be, it is unclear if the company can make an argument for the cost of such a tool.

Shah's argument about «an inferior competitive landscape» makes no sense, however, although it's of a piece with other Tesla mega-bulls, such as Loup Ventures» Gene Munster, who seems to think that Tesla can basically sell 11 million cars in the US alone.

The argument can in fact be made that the e-book retailers aren't actually doing anything wrong by allowing such content to be sold, because it is fiction.

Fischer, who has argued in the past that the Fed needed to be wary of being too slow in raising interest rates, made no such argument on Sunday.

You make the classic argument that the benefits of a booming tradable sector such as oil and gas must, ipso facto, outweigh the decline in other sectors — otherwise they wouldn't be generating enough demand to result in an increase in the country's currency.

That could be all - important for consumers, because without the deal, AT&T and Time Warner separately could be left weaker, compared to competitors such as Comcast and Disney, and less willing to deploy new services or green - light new movies and TV series — an argument made by the companies and analysts covering the sector.

A strong argument could be made that the stock market has changed to such a degree that equity prices are operating on a new plateau.

The organization... [will] make the argument that... the federal courts... are the final authority on issues important to progressives such as immigration, abortion, gay rights, social policy, the environment and corporate power, to name a few.

Politicians who advocate for more bitumen pipelines and LNG exports are making a «have your cake and eat it too argument» because there is no way Canada can meet its climate change commitments under such a scenario says David Hughes, one of the nation's top energy experts.

This is incorrect, and renders any argument you make as such in error.

Since January, DeMoss has spent about half his time making such arguments, stressing to clients that the work is not official firm business.

If there are no such lines in the bible (there aren't) then you have absolutely no argument to make.

And those that don't say that stuff instead opting to argue and dissect and article or argument for / about god doesn't show they make any positive claims to the existence of such a being, but instead to show how ridiculous and irrational somethings are.

I'm sorry but you're not making an argument to counter his, you have no references or citations to back up such a claim and so you revert to attacking this man by calling him gay??? really, you think your the world authority on the bible when then you start casting stones left and right and attacking your fellow man?

It is no accident that Percy summons Flannery O'Connor to such questions as well; but unlike her, he does not anchor his response in St. Augustine and St. Paul (we have here no abiding place) nor in St. Thomas, whose argument is insistent that the poet's, the artist's, responsibility is to the good of the thing being made, not with the correction of appetites in his audience.

Apparently, this absolute morality argument isn't about whether something is «good» or «bad» or causes pain or suffering, it's about abdicating any personal responsibility in making such a decision.

LA there is nothing wrong with making an argument that Jesus may have implied such a thing or even that Jesus agreed with everything stated in the OT.

While I agree with your as.sertion that an argument for the oversimplification can be made on nearly any position, I think the previous statement is not only unreasonably over simplified, if such were definable, but is, in fact, flat out incorrect.

that I am making a weak argument for my case... IM offended that a «smart» person woud assume such logic..

The whole point of such arguments is to make sure that we do not invent God.

But such arguments make little headway with socialists, says Novak, because, contrary to appearances, socialism is not really a practical political proposal at all.

Down through the socialist tradition, the argument repeatedly has been made that capitalism results in gross inequities, and that socialism can do away with such foolishness.

The evidence for it is less clearly found in Process and Reality than in Religion in the Making, yet it seems to be present in the philosophy of Whitehead in such a way that this third argument is really more fundamental than the two just summarized.

At least some of these arguments demonstrate that it is metaphysically impossible to make such a reduction.

Werner Jaeger, who has written the classic history of the idea of paideia, [2] pointed out in a later book on Early Christianity and Greek Paideia that Clement not only uses literary forms and types of argument calculated to sway people formed by paideia but, beyond that, he explicitly praises paideia in such a way as to make it clear that his entire epistle is to be taken «as an act of Christian education.»

How would any country in the mid east react if I and 30 Christians hoped in planes and took out 3000 people... (I am not Christian and would likely not ride in a plane with that many neurotic people, but for arguments sake... personally I think religion is the fastest road to hell, but that's another debate)... the answer is simple... Jihad... how do I make such a simple 1 word answer... Ayatollah in Iran... he has a Jihad panic button... Osama Bin Laden... he has one too... that dude in Iran that no one knows or cares how to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosque.

That makes sense, but there is nothing in such an argument that leads one to believe that such a cause MUST be, as the author claims it is, an agent.

This has been what the Kalam cosmological argument has been claiming all along, even though it does not make such a claim explicit (because it can not; it does NOT follow that there has to be an «agent»).

Mr. Blair's point is that such arguments should be allowed and encouraged in the public sphere as valid means of making moral arguments.

Being «offensive» is typically not a good argument as far as law, otherwise, I would attempt to make laws that make radicalized ignorant christian zealots such as you, as «hate» groups.

I'm ashamed that I made such arguments.

Such is an outline of Hunt's argument and her conclusion follows logically: «cultural adjustments» must be made if these texts are to remain meaningful today.44

The moralism which makes possible such a neat separation between good and evil men, and which implies subtly that we who make the distinction are to be counted among the good can not be refuted by argument.

Somewhere along the way they will likely make mention of the many Christians who do not condemn LGBTQ people, and rather than consider and respond to the arguments and beliefs of these other Christians, these pastors will just dismiss them with a wave of the hand and scornful comment about such views being «biblically illiterate.»

In making such arguments Paul was mindful of the law's divine origins (even if it had been given through angelic mediators, as per Gal.

One of the strongest arguments in recent years for abolishing the death penalty has arisen, not from the moral prohibition against the taking of life, but from the fact that with rare exceptions those who are executed are people who lack the means to secure good legal assistance, or lack the educational background to make full use of such assistance, or lack the social status which brings the case to public attention.11

The Church faces the task of making the more difficult and nuanced argument that the Catholic conscience should be respected on particular occasions, when the extent of the co-operation and the gravity of the moral issue at stake are such that forcing co-operation would be unacceptable.

Socrates does not even argue for the gods» goodness himself, but rather suggests the form that such an argument might take if the «founders of a polis» were to make it (379a - b).

Such arguments make even less sense today than they did in Luther's age, for the sword has been replaced by the nuclear bomb.

there wold be no life to «adapt to the environment» the solar system we live in... is strategically placed for life... if it were in any other place, then we would be bombarded by meteors and such... plus with the solar system where it is at is making it so that the earth going around the sun in the track it is in possible... thus providing FOR life... your argument only goes part way..

In so polarized a time as ours, such divergences are inevitable, and Donald Trump widens them because of his canny rhetorical habit of coining slogans, not making arguments.

I have no interest in making such an argument, but I would insist that those who believe the story happened and those who believe it did not — or, at any rate, do not believe that it did — should both recognize that their beliefs at this particular point are largely irrelevant.

Tanenhaus seems to think we have no right to make the argument; that such arguments are sin.

If god made the universe in such a way that kids could never know about death or disease or deformity until a certain age, then maybe you could use an argument like that, but not the way things are.

To be sure, one can make arguments for the existence of God based on naturally inexplicable events, such as miracles or fulfillments of prophecies.

As a result, the neo-Platonist tradition is becoming emboldened again, often encouraged by New Age spirituality (Goodwin's critics describe him as a New Age mystic); Aristotelianism is likewise making a comeback, particularly in creationist arguments for the validity of concepts such as purpose and design in biology.

I was just thinking about her today, by chance, and her amazing reversion, because my mother read her Jesus books... And I was thinking, damn, it's such crap the way she talked about how she stopped being an atheist because of the historicity of Jesus, no rational person can make that argument, she walking on glass, then BOOM!