Sentences with phrase «understand arguments like»

I don't understand arguments like those of Rebecca.

Not exact matches

Analysts who retain sympathy for the gold standard, like self - confessed «gold bug» John Mauldin, have always understood that the main argument in favor of gold is that it imposes an unbreakable trade and capital flow discipline — indeed that is also the main argument against gold — but many of them have tended to de-emphasize reserve currency economics mainly, I think, because this particular problem is to them subsumed under their more general concerns about money.

atheist like to use these verses quite often but the argument is ridiculous once you understand the point Jesus was making.

Furthermore, as I became more involved in the feminist conversation (some feminists are pro-life, of course, but many are pro-choice), I began to understand some of the arguments against the criminalization of abortion, like that banning abortion does not necessarily reduce the abortion rate, that enforcing a ban on all abortions would be impossible, and that women would likely seek out abortions through unsafe, illegal procedures anyway.

A long series like this is probably not the best way to use a blog, since readers come and go, and miss a post or two, and since the argument builds from post-to-post, if someone is just jumping in or misses a few post, they won't understand the flow of thought that brought us here.

He also refuses to take up Hartshorne's defense of the ontological argument (on the rather unsatisfactory ground that «when denying the ontological argument, I always feel like a fool») although he recognizes that it «lies at the heart» of Hartshorne's understanding of these matters (p. 64).

Your arguments, like many other I read against scientific hypothoses, is simplistic, lacking in basic logic, and displaying a vast lack of educational understanding.

Let's just say for the sake of argument you understand those verses and still conclude you don't like them.

I will be happy to calmy and rationally debate you as long as you would like, but if you think I simply don't understand your argument because I don't agree with it, then you've made a poor deduction.

Last, and paradoxically, the word «inerrancy» undermines its apologetic intent by reflecting a defensiveness toward Scripture that is out of keeping with the gospel's own boldly proclaimed confidence.52 For these reasons, Hubbard has become increasingly uncomfortable with the use of the term «inerrancy» to describe his basic commitment to Scripture's infallibility, though he has no basic argument with those like Pinnock who use the term as qualified and understood Biblically.

It is this claim that separates the global argument from the cumulative cases of others (whether theists like F R. Tennant and Swinburne or atheists like J. L. Mackie and Michael Martin) who understand the affirmation or the denial of the existence of God as a logically contingent proposition.

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

It is easier to understand Stapp's argument if one thinks of a set of N apparatuses like that described, in each of which a neutron - neutron scattering event has just occurred at the center of the horizontal tube and the two neutrons have ceased to interact and are on their respective ways down the opposite halves of the tube.

I would ask for proof of this unsupportable argument of yours, but it seems like every time religion gets cornered by logic, it lashes out with the same rhetoric: «Non-believers don't understand.»

I can understand an argument that having the baby sleep in the same room might be helpful, because there could be things that you don't hear on a baby monitor, but other than that, it all sounds like complete nonsense.

I'd like to try and understand your argument, but can not when there are no sources present.

Through this question, I would like to know and understand, on one hand, the main arguments of the politicians (or eq.)

Like sloppy pigeons, they flop around the Upper West Side in loose - fitting coats and a sheen of sweat, squawking through some half - understood argument.

But this isn't how Hollywood likes or understands its Brits, I think, and the Oscar is almost certainly going to go to Gary Oldman for his richly enjoyable and seamlessly latexed impersonation of Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour — although there is an argument that Stephen Dillane deserved a best supporting actor nod for his studied portrayal of the insidious appeaser, Lord Halifax, in the same film.

Arguments about the national curriculum, to some, has too much focus on these «general capabilities», which include skills like critical and creative thinking, ethical behaviours, personal and social skills and intercultural understanding.

If you want to understand why a strong federal role is needed in advancing systemic reform of American public education — and why arguments for a so - called «energized retrenchment» or backsliding in that role from some conservative reformers like Andy Smarick of Bellwether Education are unconvincing — consider what happened in 1946 after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Morgan v. Virginia.

(If I understand the piracy argument correctly, everything's already on the web anyway, so why would pirates bother — unless they like the clean, device - ready formatting.)

While I can understand the argument that if the borrower wanted to commit fraud all it needs to do is request a duplicate title, I like for them to have to do an extra step if they decide to not play by the rules.

'' It would be a bit like claiming a sub-millimetre accurate, laser - tracked gun is better at aiming than a traditional handgun, while not fully understand that to use the laser gun requires a degree in science to operate the machine that controls it» - So that's your argument.

So what I tend to do when I get like that more often than not, is understand both sides of argument and relate to them so I come off sincere about what I'm talking about but state where I stand and my reasoning.

I have read a lot of arguments from people who do not understand why someone like myself may still want to play games that are a decade old or older, when there are so many more games released today I have note played yet.

Mac users should understand why this argument is flawed.2 Fantastic games3 like Super Mario 3DS Land can only exist because Nintendo makes both the hardware and the software.

My hope is that the interactions here will be a little bit like the scientific process, whittling away at unsupported arguments, building on areas of agreement and creating a trajectory toward understanding and meaningful action.

Bringing up anything that even remotely sounds like a Bjorn Lomborg argument merely reveals a near total lack of incompetence in understanding relevance, or motive drivers at source for that matter.

A more reasonable natural variability / forcing argument might go something like this: 1) There is natural variability of climate due to solar activity 2) Climate is changing now 3) Forcing can result in climate change, but the response of the C cycle to forcing is poorly understood 4) Forcing is happening now 5) Forcing and / or solar activity could be to blame for current warming trends Is this unreasonable?

With or without global warming, there's a solid argument that improved understanding of planetary dynamics, particularly the climate system, is essential to sustaining human progress given how risks rise as populations expand, build, farm and concentrate in zones that are implicitly vulnerable to hard knocks like floods, droughts, heat and severe storms.

In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

A phrase like» A weaker jet stream is unable to maintain the cold where it usually is and accordingly the hot air will move abnormally» is difficult for such people to understand — I am not sure I fully understand your argument.

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

Thus it seems to make little difference in this case if people are convinced out of trust / deference to a Milgrim - like authority figure, or because they understand the physical arguments.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

Please understand that by creating a catch - all label like this, you quite literally are moving the entire discussion outside of the realm of science, where evidence and arguments are considered and weighed independent of the humans that advance them, where our desire to see one or another result proven are (or should be) irrelevant, where people weigh the difficulty of the problem being addressed as an important contributor (in a Bayesian sense) to how much we should believe any answer proposed — so far, into the realm where people do not think at all!

Often these arguments are accompanied with the false narrative that our scientific understanding of climate change is like a house of cards — remove one card and the whole edifice topples down.

To be honest I think this is less of a problem than people simply ignoring / denying Anthromorphic climate change because they don't like and they don't understand the arguments about it!

When so many different arguments support and no observations or plausible arguments speak against the understanding, it's natural that essentially every scientist of applicable specialization agrees that the theory of radiative energy transfer is correct including people like Lindzen and Spencer.

Sometimes he clearly grasps what he is talking about, at other times he is simply arm waving like a hummingbird and even if he perfectly understands his own post, it is not cogent to the skeptical argument conveyed, nor does the technical correctness of it, in any way support CAGW.

The aims should be things like promote communication, reduce antagonism, improve understanding and knowledge of climate science (not measured by agreement with the consensus, but by knowledge of evidence, mechanisms, and arguments), and so on.

«In a few years, as we get to understand this more, [referring to ocean variability and the pause] skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.»

If none of the above, perhaps you might like take time from you busy schedule of doing «libertarian - conservative chemistry» to respond to the substance of my argument — to wit, that there is every reason to expect those who publish most actively to have the best understanding of a field.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutor - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

Many parents don't understand creative children, because in most cases their parents didn't get support for the parents» creative efforts when they were children.The «you can't make a living as a dancer, painter, writer, gymnast» argument pushes people into areas they don't like, but pay a livable wage.

I don't know about you, but I'm more concerned about walking away from an argument feeling understood than feeling like I won.

Most couples tell me that they want to feel connected with their partner again; to stop the «same old arguments» from cycling over and over; to stop living like roommates; to end the painful silences; to feel heard and understood; and to feel hopeful, and happy again.»

Most of them feel that, no matter what they do, they end up engaging in the same arguments over and over again, and each member of the partnership usually feels like his or her needs are not understood or met by the other.

Would you like to learn to communicate and have acceptance and understanding as an outcome rather than ongoing arguments?