Sentences with phrase «what arguments have they made»

Or, simply ask, what arguments have they made that we haven't heard?

Not exact matches

There's an argument to be made, and has been made for years, that Apple needs to transition iTunes — which makes money via individual transactions — to a subscription model, since that's what consumers are increasingly preferring.

Canadian Press reported that Harper said: «Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made.

Canadian Press reported that Harper said: «Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made... that this is analogous to race and ethnicity.

You'd probably have to come up with a statistical model that estimates what the fluctuations should be given some basic assumptions on how people will buy to make a conclusive argument that there is something fishy here.

To make gains among these voters, Republicans needed to make detailed (but pithy) arguments about what was wrong with Obamacare and the benefits of Republican health care policy X (read National Affairs to get an idea of some of the things they could have said), and do so in plain language.

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.

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

If what you're trying to use here is the ad hominem fallacy - attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument - then the only people you'll convince with this tactic are those who haven't learned to think critically.

Press those who make that argument, however, and we discover that they do have definite notions of what is obscene, beginning with the people who protest obscenity.

I have learned that 99 % of what's posted is just unoriginal arguments recycled over and over again, but every now and then I read something that makes me think.

He was making what we would now recognize as a non-establishment argument, one that was not exactly an extension of the traditional Anglo - American case for toleration.

In that case, a second argument would need to be mounted to show that the exegesis really supports the generalizations made about what the text says.

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»).

The first and most obvious is that what he has to say captures so well the essence of the revisionist argument, and second it makes clear that the argument of the revisionists is the same whether they are speaking of heterosexual or homosexual relations.

I never said that atheist have the better argument, sorry if that was what it seemed, but that was never my intent And no, I don't want you to believe that might makes right, I've not really shared my view.

If, for example, you've ever struggled with what Romans 9 - 11 has to do with the rest of the letter, Wright's view makes these chapters not only fit within the flow of Paul's argument, but actually become the pinnacle and the climax of Romans.

Christians must not claim that Christian revelation makes Christianity superior to other religions, she believes: «What Christianity has going for it is its substantive proposal of a way of life — a way of life over which Christians argue in the effort to witness to and be disciples of Christ, and with which they enter into argument with others.»

Sentence two is the closest to an actual argument he makes, but it is a fact that science has little to no information on what happens after we die, as you pointed out yourself, we do not know (in the sense of having empirical proof).

It's sad when contemporary arguments are made over interpretations of what some guy said 150 years ago vs. what some other guys may have said a couple thousand years ago.

From Hemant: It seems like you've both managed to make this relationship work, which is great, but I wonder what arguments get the most contentious due to your religious differences.

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's not clear what you've demonstrated here other than a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding about how arguments are made.

lol, yes clay i am an atheist... i created the sun whorshipping thing to have argument against religion from a religious stand point... however, the sun makes more sense then something you can't see or feel — the sun also gives free energy... your god once did that for the jews, my gives it to the human race as well as everything else on the planet, fuk even the planet is nothing without the sun... but back to your point — yes it is very hypocritical of me, AND thats the point, every religious person i have ever met has and on a constant basis broken the tenets of there faith without regard for there souls — it seems to only be the person's conscience that dictates what is right and wrong... the belief in a god figure is just because its tradition to and plus every else believes so its always to be part of the group instead of an outsider — that is sadly human nature to be part of the group.

You want me to read the link you provide then proceed to «step 2» in what you want to prescribe but you haven't made any convincing argument yet for the proof you allege to have made for the position you hold about Matthew's profession or the authorship of the book of Matthew.

Benedict has expressed regret about the violent Muslim reaction to what he said; he has continued to meet with Muslim leaders; he has reaffirmed the Church's continuing dialogue with Islam — but there is no chance whatsoever that he will retract or retreat from the argument he has made.

But most of the energy in Catholic moral theology has gone into making arguments showing that what used to be prohibited can actually be licit.

And in the same way, what had to be done in the cases of same - sex marriage was a serious effort to draw on the substantive arguments, made by Robert George, Ryan Anderson, Sherif Girgis (and others of us) to explain again why the marriage of a man and woman is the most defensible form of marriage.

I've heard more than a handful definitions or repentance and the content of saving faith and all make pretty strong arguments to someone like me who doesn't really know a whole lot (and even though I hold to faith alone in Christ alone there's even tons of different opinions on what that even means lol).

When campaigning against whaling gained momentum in the late 1970's, similar arguments were made in its defence that we now hear in support of live export: jobs depended on it; whaling underpinned regional economies; and what would local communities do instead?

From your arguments you make I'd say you been watching football for 2 years and listen to what the media n so called pundits say.

A lot of arguments are being made about what we need — and don't need — and lots of people have weighed in with good points.

Besides several teams who have questions surrounding one or possibly two players, there is no squad that has so many issues heading into the final week of the transfer window... even Monaco, who have lost numerous players from their starting 11 have less controversy swirling in and around their club and they have champion's league play to contend with this season... just think of how ridiculous this situation is especially considering that we have had the same manager for over 20 years... no team should be better organized than ours... if nothing else, that should be the one advantage this team holds over all others, yet the exact opposite has occurred... this fact is even more disturbing considering the main argument against removing Wenger from his managerial position was that there was no suitable replacement and that people feared some sort of perceived drop - off if a new manager was brought into the mix... based on what we've witnessed since the time of his contract renewal a monkey with a magic eight ball could have done an adequate job... I hate to make jokes, in light of our current dilemma, but this team is so screwed up if I don't laugh about it, the only plausible response is to either cry or do something incredibly destructive... just look around this squad and try to see what our delusional manager sees that allow him to make such positive statements about our current team

the reason you don't get the goalkeeper argument is because fans in general don't know how to assess keepers we think if he makes a few saves he great, but thats not how it works, its a specialist position, where the lay man fan can't really see the defeciecies, the fact that Bob Wilson Wengers ass wiper himself cast doubts speaks volumes.i don't think Wenger will do whats required for us to push on hes not capable of it, not ruthless enough.We all know Arteta, Flamini an Diaby should be gone, but will they be gone thats the question.If they are still in our squad next season then Wenger has failed us again like the last 10 years

To be honest Fred I'm P off with this site im100 % sure Spurs fans are on here or why would someone want a left back at CB, either Spurs fans or the usual Tv arsenal fans, they can't even put a decent argument, so it's easy to thumb down, there's only a few on here who I do Ramadan their posts, Caraig, Phillnosethompson, arseovertit, twig, yourself, robinvanpayslip, and a few others who make decent arguments either way, and others are just to brainwashed to see what's wrong,

I would make the argument that the first 3 - 4 years of a QB are the most important for development and their improvement then will determine not only how long they are on a team but can determine what there overall development will be.

Reading everybody's posts and arguments for and against Wenger, Kroenke and Gazidis has at times made me laugh, cry, bitter and angry to the point of pulling out what hair i have left.

Not trying to start an argument just wanted to get my point across and if the selection is switched (plus cech to me is a better keeper but the risk of courtois leaving if he wasn't given the number 1 spot is what meant cech became number 2 to someone ten years younger than him) that would make the split 5 - 6 arsenal - Chelsea, a much more balanced split.

The same argument could be made that Wonderboy did know that he wouldn't be champ doing what he did.

of course no team wants to lose but I can guarantee you that the reaction by the Chelski fans after today's results are nowhere near what would have occurred if we shit the bed on opening day... the difference is they have tasted EPL success on more than one occasion recently, they have won the Champions League and they have done it with 3 different managers in the last 12 years with a similar, if not smaller, wage bill than us... in comparison, we have been experiencing our own personal Groundhog Day with nothing to show for it but a few silvery trinkets that would barely wet the appetite of a world - class club... so it's time for Wenger to stop gloating over our week one escape act and make some substantial moves before this window closes or I fear that things will take a horrible turn when the inevitable happens... living on a knife's edge is no way to go through a full season of football and regardless of what side of the argument you fall on, you could feel high levels of toxicity in the air and that was friggin week one... I would much rather someone tried their best and failed, than took half - measures and hoped for the best

For us to be even in the argument with what they've spent just goes to show you we've made a couple of big strides in the right direction.

I mean, if Buffalo had just lost against us in the tournament we wouldn't have been eliminated, so we just have to assume that's what happened in order to make an argument.

I have this argument with my dad everyday, I really don't care we are the fifth richest club in the world, football in my opinion is all about what happens on the pitch not in the accounting department, we as fans were sold a dream by the people at the top of our club including wenger that basically said after Ashburton grove was built we'd compete on the pitch with the best in Europe, guess what we haven't, the only thing we've done is make a rich American and his associates even richer, wenger has been a willing participant in this.

There is an argument to be made for taking the post down now that the family has commented and made the post private, but an attack on Dr. Tuteur for using what was, at the time, public information strikes me as unwarranted and unfair.

In my opinion what has happened in this area is that a kind of social ideology is now embedded within the medical paradigm, to the extent that that social judgments are masquerading as scientific judgments making the science a pseudo science, as a relatively small number of people have been placed in a position wherein they can choose what relevant lines of evidence (and what counter arguments) are acceptable and which are not, as deemed by themselves.

(Though, in context, on this occasion she seems to be talking more about what it takes for MPs to more genuinely represent a specific community: I have heard her previously make somewhat conflicting arguments on that broad theme: I strongly prefer the former approach that BME or Muslim MPs are not «community representatives» in that narrow sense.

It has failed to make the argument that what is good for business leaders is not necessarily good for their workers.

The argument doesn't really work logically as a * defence * of anti-Catholic discrimination, which is what you'd like to make of it.

What I don't really see is how the Labour party holding three pilots in this Parliament, or even selecting all of its candidates in some form of primary at the next election or the time after would make any really significant difference to arguments for or against first - past - the - post, the Alternative Vote, AV +, AMS, STV and various hybrids thereof.

On «Labour as a class party», it would be interesting to see what you make of the Soskice / Iversen argument put by Stuart White in the next thread up.