Sentences with phrase «to argue from»

Even in the happiest home, problems pop up and people argue from time to time.

When men argue, they tend to argue from what they consider to be a logical position.

It can be argued from different perspective that dating websites offers a more practical and easy way to find a potential partner.

Modern mainstream economic theory argues from so - called «universal» principles, to arrive at universally «valid» conclusions.

That's an argument for someone far more intelligent than I, as it's a debate that could be argued from many, many different viewpoints.

Second, it is arguing from consequences to assert that the best advertising is merely to represent the image of a competent, trustworthy lawyer.

We need to argue from specific situations to equally specific conclusions.

Try arguing from the position of humility, you might actually reach through.

He was arguing from opinion of why a particular definition would apply, rather than using linguistic logic.

Therefore, we can hardly argue from the present arrangement against the theory of chance.

Rather, the authors argue from various perspectives, reconciliation is an essential ingredient of justice.

Yeah but you can't argue from rodents when it comes to high - fat diets.

I can only argue from my point of view and I have nothing to compare against the PS3.

This post argues from ignorance and it would be a real shame if it turned anyone away from the game.

Okay, maybe that statement is too absolute, but most of the couples I know argue from time to time.

It's normal for parents to disagree and argue from time to time.

If you want to be of any value in this debate then learn the physics and argue from fact.

And as for the comment about «arguing from ignorance»: do not make your statements personal.

As Randall Younker of Andrews University stated in March 2000 while delivering a speech in the Dominican Republic: «Clearly, scholars who have denied the presence of domesticated camels in the 2nd millennium B.C. have been committing the fallacy of arguing from silence.

One might think that such «scholars» would learn not to speak with such assurance when arguing from silence.]»

And most importantly, it would have to be cogently argued from Scripture.

David Lull responds initially by arguing from Cobb that the idea of creative transformation is a material norm for theology, and that the word «transformation» is a rational statement of the more symbolic terms «creation, redemption, justification, emancipation, or sanctification» (WPH 194).

A post-Enlightenment public square sounds positively tribal: it would mean Muslims arguing for Shari'a law and Christians arguing from the Bible about sexual ethics.

You are basically arguing from your own lack of knowledge of the science, you feel justified coming into RC, playing innocent, and indirectly accusing folks (such as myself) of not being nice to you.