Not exact matches
It is a
very hard
argument to make, however, if you are really open to a
fair representation of the facts.
I think it is
fair to say that the only ones who admit the
argument is valid are the ones who believe that God is at the
very least a theoretical possibility.
It seems to me to be a
very big difference if somebody who's putting up their own money and taking a big risk and creating wealth and jobs for the economy - well that's
fair enough, that's the old British «good luck to them»
argument.
By providing this
fair look at the evidence, it's interesting to see that gaming comes out in a
very positive light, while the
arguments against them are almost entirely destroyed ir disproved.
Whilst some might argue that it's not a «proper» first - person shooter (you can between first - person and third - person PoV, and playing effectively requires a
fair amount of work in third - person PoV), but I don't really buy that
argument since aside from this tweak, which is
very much related to the mechanics of a tank turret, it works
very much like any other PVP short - battle shooter.
I find it makes a
very clear and persuasive
argument for throwing out Judge Batts» sweeping ruling, and it's a nice, not too esoteric discussion of appropriation and
fair use as well.
Yet, since the world averages 6.5 CO2 tons of per capita emissions while countries like the United States are emitting 19 tons per capita, and the world must reduce per capita emissions to perhaps less than 2.0 tons per capita to prevent dangerous climate change, it is
very unlikely that many groups or people in developed countries can make a respectable
argument that they are already below their
fair share of safe global emissions.
Although some developing nations can make a presentable
argument that they could increase greenhouse gas emissions without exceeding their
fair share of global emissions, the developed nations, including the United States can not make this
argument because it is known that existing total global emissions levels need to be significantly reduced and the developed nations are
very high emitting nations compared to most nations in the world.
However, there may be some in developed countries that are emitting
very small amounts of GHGs who can make a credible
argument that they are already emitting at levels below their
fair share of safe global emissions.
The
very argument highlighted above, that people can't agree as to whether the word, and its associated meaning, exist in different languages, reminds me of how people can't agree in English as to what is or is not «
fair.»