Sentences with phrase «what other arguments»

What other arguments can I make against its inclusion?

I'm waiting several days to see what other arguments are brought forward, but as of now, the drought discussion is not in play.

So what other argument against it is left?

Not exact matches

Nothing is worse after a car accident — fender bender or otherwise — than having an argument with the other driver about what really happened.

It means deciding what one believes not by conforming to fashionable opinions, but by taking the trouble to learn and honestly consider the strongest arguments to be advanced on both or all sides of questions — including arguments for positions that others revile and want to stigmatize and against positions others seek to immunize from critical scrutiny.»

«You often get more by finding out what the other person wants than you do by clever arguments supporting what you need.»

But to what extent are such arguments justified versus simply justification for seeking preferential access to subsidized government finance and other forms of support?

Progressive legal theorists exploited this doctrinal disjunction to argue that the justices» opposition to economic reforms was fundamentally ideological and thus illegitimate: «If the public's evolving attitude towards liquor and lotteries had been sufficient to justify a rethinking of economic rights and federalism constraints, the argument went, then what else but the subjective policy preferences of the justices themselves could explain the Court's stubborn resistance to other, broadly popular forms of «social» legislation?»

For 2 days and 26 pages of site entries people from around the world have thrown anger and curses and hate at each other and at God — and for what??? No arguments have been won, no souls have been won, no peace has been gained, no problems have been solved, no hunger has been fed, no bank accounts have been increased... get the picture?

Despite my general sympathy with what Dreher seeks to do in this book, I am less enthusiastic about other facets of his argument.

Pastafarian, I have googled just now your «russells teapot» I do undetatand what he is trying to say, and typical of any athiest he has tried to come up with an argument that allows him to escape the idea that he is accountable to anyone other than himself.

Holiness for me was found in the mess and labour of giving birth, in birthday parties and community pools, in the battling sweetness of breastfeeding, in the repetition of cleaning, in the step of faith it took to go back to church again, in the hours of chatting that have to precede the real heart - to - heart talks, in the yelling at my kids sometimes, in the crying in restaurants with broken hearted friends, in the uncomfortable silences at our bible study when we're all weighing whether or not to say what we really think, in the arguments inherent to staying in love with each other, in the unwelcome number on the scale, in the sounding out of vowels during bedtime book reading, in the dust and stink and heat of a tent city in Port au Prince, in the beauty of a soccer game in the Haitian dust, in the listening to someone else's story, in the telling of my own brokenness, in the repentance, in the secret telling and the secret keeping, in the suffering and the mourning, in the late nights tending sick babies, in confronting fears, in the all of a life.

You have sought out what you acknowledge as weak arguments and refuted them (some better than others), a straw man approach all the way around.

This argument, however, falls, because we have shown that although a body, say, a plant, can accomplish what the individual cells in it can not do, e.g., flower and bear fruit, still, the plant needs the ground as its «other.»

In what follows I shall limit myself to a Whiteheadian account of why we should work for change, even though arguments, often similar ones, could be generated from other sources.

So much for Gopnik's argument that Chesterton's «national spirit» and «extreme localism» led him to his supposed anti-Semitism: they were, in fact, precisely what gave him his respect for other nations and other cultures, including that of the Jews, to which the world owed its knowledge of God, «as narrow as the universe».

Please, let no one bring up again the inevitable and useless argument: «We must do what we pray for, we can not ask for daily bread for ourselves without giving daily bread to others.»

The Sophist proposed to teach virtue by conveying information about what other thinkers had taught about virtue and by training in techniques of rhetoric and argument.

If two people are arguing about what qualifies as true «fruit» and one has apples in mind and the other has oranges, but they keep using the world «fruit» the argument quickly becomes quite messy.

I only say that to say that if you are allowed your argument what prevents others from using the same argument about actions they don't want classified as sin.

If you having to force your views on others and not through winning them over with reason, then your arguments are possibly flawed, your actions do not match what you preach or the person you are talking to may over time change their view.

Here is what I do nt get about either side... they make an argument for something, but then are completely unable to apply it to other scenarios.

i just know i use these same arguments A LOT — because a lot of atheists don't seem to want to read other atheists... which makes me wonder if they really know what they believe.

What shocks me is that so many's argument for religion is that it provides you with a moral compass and without religion everybody would kill each other.

In ways even more relentless and entangled than at present, arguments about what we insist are «other» questions will be emerging from and returning to the question of abortion.

You need to stop being so vindictive towards others, maybe read a book, go have sex, whatever you need to calm down, then come back and realize that no one is attacking you, im sure people are laughing at this conversation, but not because of what it in but just because its pointless, you bring up the same things OVER and OVER again and then accuse me of having spuratic arguments?

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.»

In order to cushion himself against such an obsolete inference, he distinguishes between what he calls the «argument to complexity» on the one hand, and the «argument to design» on the other.

If a non-believer has no faith, then what is the argument for removing religious symbols of other religious practices in the first place?

To find a principle through the natural law reasoning of judges that makes the Constitution mean something other than, sometimes opposite to, what those who voted to make it law understood themselves to mean can hardly be sound moral argument.

He did not spend his time preaching what everybody already believed, but he used these common agreements in the formulation of arguments on other topics.

Valuing others for what they can do for us is quite a materialistic argument.

If Chad and others argue that naturalistic evolution must be dismissed because we don't know exactly what happened with gene mutation and transmission frequencies during particular periods of rapid change, then how can we accept a replacement argument in which we don't even know what happens at all?

One hates to make old arguments, but if this education teaches (as other sections of the report make clear that is must) the familiar doctrines about how very wrong it is to impose any kind of normative standard on the many forms that peoples» desires can take, on what basis does it exclude pornography or the sexualization of young girls as legitimate forms of the varied human sexual appetite?

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.

In other words, what separates the classical Christian position on sex from the contemporary anything - goes alternative is not one simple argument, but an entire worldview.

I'd be ready to accept the merit in your arguments if I could see what you mean by «sound hermeneutics» rather than being told that others lack them.

The argument more or less says that these hypothetical «good» people realize that what they're doing to others is harmful, but that their religious convictions, like love of God, trump their innate morality.

As i said before, I am under no illusion that we can» convert» each other to our own position, so I'm happy to state what I hold to, passingly offer some arguments, and be more giddish the rest of the time.

That is, what Frye calls «blatant literalism» and «vague transcendentalism» must be replaced by a new sense of the vitality of words and their use in other contexts than propositional arguments.

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

But with precisely the same cast of argument, the judges will need to settle their answer to the question of just what is their principled ground for turning back these other demands that spring from the very reasoning they bring forward as they detach marriage from that central notion of begetting.

What the Bible says or what the Church's Magisterium says should inspire and inform our public argument, but it is not a genuinely public argument to tell others that we should do something because it is the teaching of the Bible or the MagisterWhat the Bible says or what the Church's Magisterium says should inspire and inform our public argument, but it is not a genuinely public argument to tell others that we should do something because it is the teaching of the Bible or the Magisterwhat the Church's Magisterium says should inspire and inform our public argument, but it is not a genuinely public argument to tell others that we should do something because it is the teaching of the Bible or the Magisterium.

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.

Furthermore, even the identification of the putative content of experience proves to be normed by whatever hermeneutical analysis is employed, for one can only imagine, much less recognize as present, what one can come to identify somehow.16 Finally, some hermeneutical analysis is also presupposed by and, therefore, normative of any argument from experience, whether of the individual or the communal type, since it is only experience as interpretable in terms of some description or other to which one can ever appeal either for the mutual corroboration of such descriptions or for their illustration of a theistic interpretation.

To recap the argument as a whole: Having begun with mutually corroborating individual and communal appeals to experience to establish what he takes to be a fact, namely, that our twofold noetic experience of ourselves and others is valuational, Ogden then argues for a further noetic sense of an encompassing whole in addition to such a twofold sense of the worth of self and others.25 Finally, he argues in correlational fashion that such a threefold noetic experience of valuation presupposes as the condition of its possibility an ontic whole to be experienced.

I'm an atheist, and I don't really care what others believe, as long as no one is trying to force me into their beliefs (and I don't mean things like putting Bible passages in courthouses, those arguments are just petty).

Unless Griffin demonstrates that we are not justified in not broadening our «understanding of experience,» he has not demonstrated what he needs to demonstrate: that others can not justifiably reject his argument — can not justifiably reject his basis for maintaining that no actuality can be totally devoid of power of self - determination.

Friedersdorf's argument relies on a more modern assumption: that what is other or different is, as such, good and lovable — or at least tolerable.

Until there is absolute proof do nt be so arrogant to dismiss the others argument you may find yourself in a position that you are wrong, and guess what if I am wrong oh well... but if you are wrong UH OH...