Sentences with phrase «than arguments made»

My Facebook feed is as politically charged as ever, many posts reading as partisan advertisements rather than arguments made in good faith.

This position is much derided, but more for the conclusions it reaches than the argument it makes.

Not exact matches

While there's an argument to be made that AI is over-hyped as a technology, there's data to back up Sanwal's tongue - in - cheek advice: Mergers and acquisitions of AI startups increased by a factor of seven between 2011 and 2015, from five to more than 35 deals, according to the research firm.

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.

Earlier this year, Wall Street Journal editor Gerard Baker made a similar argument, saying the word lie «implies much more than just saying something that's false.

But there's more going on here than poor planning and backroom arguments — something that is making even wary investors outside the corporate bond market sit up and take notice.

I made the same argument more than two years ago in «20 reasons for ending Canada Post's monopoly.»

Make the argument as to why you're a fit based on what you learned in the interview rather than what it says in the job description.

In the end, Morrissey's book seems to be making a different argument than he supposes.

«Any argument they make for keeping that in would result in the same kinds of legal challenges presented by Section 3 (c), which poses the question of, «Why have people from these countries been deemed more dangerous than others?»»

Rather than taking the time to carefully consider a different perspective, they generalize anything and everything you say, making blanket statements that don't acknowledge the nuances in your argument or take into account the multiple perspectives you've paid homage to,» Thought Catalog says, summing up this behavior.

The episode made me far more famous among people who advocate the design argument than anything I could have without the participation of the atheists.

But that dynamic is likely on account of growth - minded economic policy in those countries rather than a specifically detrimental economic policy in the U.S.. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have not made this argument.

Redford did not make that argument, perhaps because she thought that 75,000 jobs still sounds better than a marginal decrease in the price of gasoline.

In fact, there's an argument to be made — as Dennis Berman does at the Wall Street Journal — that the Verizon bid for AOL says more about Verizon's difficulties than it does about any intrinsic value that its target might have.

In future, the sharks» appetites might even make people safer: Stingrays injure beachgoers on California's coast far more frequently than white sharks do, Lowe says, though he acknowledges that's a hard argument to sell to a shark - phobic public.

Some companies are making changes now rather than wait for academics to shore up the argument.

In Millionaire Success Habits, Graziosi argues makes a convincing argument that your not - to - do list is far more important than your to - do list.

The argument can been made, has been made, will be made again in the days ahead that Keystone is no more a contributor to carbon emissions than an apple crate makes apples.

Compare a 4 % drop to the fact that unemployment grew across the country from around 4 % to almost 10 % in the same timeframe and you could make the argument that broker employment has actually held up better than that of most professions.

They can't win votes saying they'll bring up the global price of crude any more than they can make the unemotional economist's argument, that anything but the most interventionist government action won't do much to help short - term job prospects.

The one major point in favor of your argument that you didn't highlight is that most people using a Roth IRA assume that they'll make more money in the future than they do today, thus realizing a lower tax rate by paying taxes now than they would have in the future (even assuming tax rates stay constant).

Admittedly, one could make the same argument about gold, but gold has been widely accepted by humankind as a thing of value for more than two - and - a-half thousand years — compared to less than a decade for bitcoin.

In spite of this data, you could make an argument for people holding more stocks in their portfolios for the simple fact that people are living longer than ever, so maybe they need more stocks to grow their money in retirement:

«But there's a powerful argument that the chance of extreme events is greater than people probably think, and now is sort of a strange time to be implicitly making the everything - will - be-OK argument.»

These and other trends seem to make a good argument for buying a home in California earlier in 2018, rather than later.

Consequently, a good argument can be made that the «core fundamentals» are now worse than they were when the gold price was $ 350 - $ 400.

So it's not only longer than the bonds we were issuing then but the argument, «well, it's not really that much longer than this bond is,» is perhaps that extrapolation that makes me a little bit nervous, that there is too much complacency.

Lou Mercer: Or we're always taught the market does not like uncertainty, but you can make an argument that since the election, we've been more uncertain than ever.

He also makes the classic argument that citizen virtue matters a lot more than the Constitution.

That has made belief systems and arguments about facts far more important than they were in Jesus» day.

A bigger problem is that cynical pols like Romney (and Michelle Bachmann on this issue) end up feeding into this self - defeating narrative because it seems easier than making a real argument about health care or taxes or what have you.

Taken as a whole they've made a very compelling argument that the explanations of the universe provided by both science and religion are incomplete and always evolving, and that one perspective is no more or less valid than another.

The argument might be made that any identity is better than none, but it strikes us that these people are truly desperate.

Jeff's position makes much more sense than the Christians, and I don't see an argument from their position against his.

Oh, and for the record, I would never make the argument that I'm smarter than a theist solely because I refuse to believe in god.

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.Hate against any group of people you dis - agree is still hate and is not tolerable in my opinion.

In doing so, you are basing your argument upon appealing to the exception rather than the rule which makes for a weak argument in my opinion.

You don't know what theories are in a scientific context, you make an argument equivalent to «people can't take strides greater than ten feet, therefore it's impossible to run a marathon,» and you think that the lack of a full understanding about a particular hypothetical explanation is some kind of demonstration that science is an abject failure.

That argument is no different than a creationist thinking that proving evolution false makes them right by default.

The Wahhabi movement in Arabia was a reaction against the worship of saints, but it made use of force rather than arguments, and failed to establish a general reform.

Forcing the case for this kind of living moral alternative into the narrow confines of an argument that is just about religion and liberty makes the treasure we seek to protect seem smaller and less significant than it truly is.

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.

In other words, I make the choice to do something that might alter my physical being if something goes wrong... can I make the birth control argument, since birth control is not 100 % full proof, that this gear is cheaper than the medical cost of my injuries if I fall?

It's the lying and deception that can destroy trust in these situations more than almost anything else, and the second episode even makes it a point to try and get that across through slapstick humor, until it ditches that initial argument altogether and starts becoming a wacky comedy in full with all of the usual trappings.

has about it something of a demand for a pedigree, which might at least lend some credibility to the claims Christ makes for himself; for want of which, Pilate can do little other than pronounce his truth: «I have power to crucify thee» (which, to be fair, would under most circumstances be an incontrovertible argument).

Yes, they need to be taught to believe in gods, but babies don't have the ability to determine that gods are, or aren't real either, which make that argument a whole lot less compelling than the people who like to use it would like.

«If you leave your wild beliefs out of your argument, you'll have a much better chance of making a point that is logical to anyone other than you» -------- So why didn't you give that advice to Doc when he insinuated that God is anthropocentric?

Defending the argument is only necessary because the stupid an unsubstantiated claim that «atheists killed more than Christians» is repeatedly made, and usually done so with imaginary figures like «Mao killed 800 million people».