Sentences with phrase «whole point of my argument»

Besides, you missed the whole point of the argument; if any of these variables were different, the universe would not exist.

TMW — that's the whole point of my argument — there is not much difference between having cash and debt or having no cash and less debt as long as you have access to a line of credit.

The statement of watching someone playing then become not appealing to you statement alone already void your whole point of argument.

The level of science that is being relied upon to decide billions in tax and environmental policies is not «basic», that is afterall the whole point of this argument.

Not exact matches

She does not address or refute the underlying arguments of her opposition at any point in this whole article!

He is good at putting a simple point that demolishes the whole edifice of an argument.

The whole point of such arguments is to make sure that we do not invent God.

The role of the ontological argument in Hartshorne's philosophical theology should not be exaggerated by pointing to this argument as evidence of the anti-empirical character of Hartshorne's position, as a whole.

Behind your whole argument there lies the difficult problem of our relation to Jesus, though I would rather not embark upon that at this point.

I have always felt that dispensationalism and covenant theology (as well as many other arguments) miss the whole point of the Gospel.

JEDP is an outdated understanding of biblical criticism and has been discarded by most mainline Abrahamic biblical scholars for over a decade.Other than your whole JEDP point for argument, you deliver a modestly sound criticism of biblical criticism and interpretation.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

Now it is central to the whole point of David Novak's argument that this entire strategy is founded on a most fundamental error, whose formulation we must cite in full, adding italics to highlight its centrality: «Theologically, the error here is that revelation is essentially reduced to the supreme awareness of an order already present in creation.»

How again does your point engender itself to the attempt at a faith based argument which is the whole point of this post?

The point of my post was not to drag up the whole Hillary vs Trump argument (with all of the tribal narratives)... it was to say that there is a greater - than - zero percentage of Trump's base that are flat - out racists... and some of them may also 1) like the Eagels and 2) post on this blog.

If i recall exactly we had a whole argument over the valuation of Sterling, you refuted on numerous ocassions when i stated that Sterling would cost more than 35 million the point i made over 2 months ago and still make now and im sure most fans would agree is not that gnabry is better its just he is promising talent, and for the value City paid for Raheem (which is almost criminal considering Di Maria, cost PSG less) it would have been better to see Gnabry given a run out or sign someone actually worth 50 million

As Steven Weinberg points out here, the argument made against extremists ends up invoking a moral sense to argue that the religious ideas of the extremists are wrong, when the whole point of religion is that it should be the other way around.

At this point it's important to caveat the whole line of argument about Labour and its diminishing working class - ness (as Eric Joyce recently pointed out).

Reviewed the whole are of the source and you can add arguments and points of your view.

That's the key underlying point, in fact, to the whole argument: Amazon could sell ebooks for $ 9.99 and break even or make a bit of money even if they pay their wholesale pulp brink price to the publishers, and the publishers make money on the ebooks even if they do take some discount, because ebooks cost nothing on the margin to produce.

Obviously your money has value and you don't want to throw it away, and the argument of games being overpriced as a whole might have merit somewhere, but complaining that «1200 Microsoft points is a little steep for a 6 - 15 hour game» blows my mind into pieces.

P2's Dylan Burns said both sides of the argument had points, and touched on other observations about the whole thing being subjective anyway.

Your point about the combination of work & social life is probably the crux of the whole argument.

Kafre's solo exhibition Things, Mereology and Schemes is a new body of work focused on three main topics of particular interest to the artist: (1) Things — the distinction between the natural things, non-natural things and the artifacts that occur between them; (2) Mereology — the philosophical and mathematical study of parts and the wholes they form, and (3) Schemes — a scheme consists of a table's structure, which physical constitution is mainly due to columns, names and variables and the relation between them; used to map out something, or to design the internal of a logical system; the main points of an argument or theory, etcetera.

So what is the point of the whole objective Bayesian argument?

The Climate Skeptics who do not accept the whole argument that mankind is primarily responsible for warming are quick to point out the nearly flat temperture rise since 1998 is in the presence of continued CO2 growth.

This was the whole point of the initial arguments in my comment - I was putting clear blue water between the bias adjustment stage and the weighting stage so that we could see how the weighting leveraged the already upwardly adjusted buoy data in each 2 ° x 2 ° monthly bin by 6.8.

You don't even acknowledge that this has been the point of argument over the whole discussion.

While I agree with most of your points, those few sound so bogus that weaken your whole argument.

[Response: Your argument misses the point in three different and important ways, not even considering whether or not the Black Hills data have any general applicability elsewhere, which they may or may not: (1) It ignores the point made in the post about the potential effect of previous, seasonal warming on the magnitude of an extreme event in mid summer to early fall, due to things like (especially) a depletion in soil moisture and consequent accumulation of degree days, (2) it ignores that biological sensitivity is far FAR greater during the warm season than the cold season for a whole number of crucial variables ranging from respiration and photosynthesis to transpiration rates, and (3) it ignores the potential for derivative effects, particularly fire and smoke, in radically increasing the local temperature effects of the heat wave.

The corolary is that Lomborg's point is rational, but since we are emotional creatures, it is normal to feel unease about it and reject the whole argument out of it.

Steve and others have pointed out a whole lot of really sloppy work and sloppy arguments from the team over the years.

The whole point of the DMCA is that you don't get involved in any way with the argument, because that means you can not get sued.

to promote «whole» life insurance, we wrote it to point out the «silliness» of the argument that Term Life Insurance is a rip - off.

Hilariously its argument was «DARPA has had a lot of failures» thus demonstrating extreme ignorance about the basic idea — the whole point is you must have failures and if you don't have lots of failures then you are failing!

we get into a lot of arguments and yes after the cheating incident i have asked for a divorce but i didn't mean it i was very upset we have gotten in multiple physical fights and we have made up from them but recently we have gotten in a really bad one to the point where my husband has told me that he no longer wants to be with me and wants to divorce me i need advice on what i should do like he still tells me he loves me and is nice and loving toward me every so often but then he goes back to the whole he doesn't want me and tells me not to touch him but then a few hours later or a day later he wants to be close again.