ellauri096.html on line 153: The eliminativist, who thinks that ‘know’ or ‘justified’ is meaningless, will diagnose the epistemic paradoxes as questions that only appear to be well-formed. For instance, the eliminativist about justification would not accept proposition (4) in the regress paradox: ‘Some beliefs are justified’. His point is not that no beliefs meet the high standards for justification, as an anarchist might deny that any ostensible authorities meet the high standards for legitimacy. Instead, the eliminativist unromantically diagnoses ‘justified’ as a pathological term. Just as the astronomer ignores ‘Are there a zillion stars?’ on the grounds that ‘zillion’ is not a genuine numeral, the eliminativist ignores ‘Are some beliefs justified?’ on the grounds that ‘justified’ is not a genuine adjective.
ellauri133.html on line 410: Although King is widely considered to be the master of horror, he’s previously said he doesn’t have an answer when people ask what drives him. It was his answer to these inquiries. "I thought to myself, ´Why don’t I write a final exam on horror, and put in all the monsters that I was afraid of as a kid? And call it it?´" King told TIME in 2009. "And I thought, How are you going to do that? And I said, Well, I´m going to do it like a fairy tale. I’m going to make up a town where these things happen and everybody ignores them. Like in Grinch."
ellauri152.html on line 615: Now, here Singer is not mad at Yentl the film for cis-normifying his gender-ambiguous, interestingly queer Yentl, but rather for turning the ending into optimistic kitsch that ignores the harsh reality of what life in America was for Jewish immigrants, especially for Jewish women. And in some ways I feel like rolling my eyes at him for that. Aside from the fact that it offends his artistic vision, why shouldn’t Jewish women get a film where—suspension of disbelief!—a Jew will study Torah, loudly and proudly, as a woman? It’s a musical, not a documentary.
ellauri156.html on line 776: (2) God sees our sin, even when men do not. He sees through the privy door. Our sins never slip past God unnoticed. The wicked refuse to believe that God sees their sin, or that if He does, that He will deal with it: And they say, “How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most High?” (Psalm 73:11; see 2 Peter 3:3ff.) The answer is he has X-ray vision. And a huge notebook. God may delay judgment or discipline, but He will never ignore our sin. If he ignores it, it was a venial sin. But better not try your luck!
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 374: However…. that said… there is a strange truth to it, that oddly everyone ignores.
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 457: Because it assumes that rich people automatically create more jobs if they have more money. This idea ignores the reason why jobs are created in the first place: to make profit. Which means that new jobs are only created if they are profitable to the employer. If all the jobs that could be created aren’t, it doesn’t matter how much money the employer has. And therefore giving the employer more money in such a situation will not lead to more jobs being created.
xxx/ellauri121.html on line 344: Sullivan rightly traces Atwood’s notable self-confidence to those early years, but she also ignores the hints in her own narrative that Atwood’s family, like any other, had its neurotic tics—and that Atwood certainly carried her own share of psychic stress into adulthood. Where else does the buried grief, anger and sense of calamity in her writing come from?
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 805: b) Furthermore, this objection ignores the history behind the Infancy Gospels themselves and the intentions behind their creation. The Christians penning the gospels knew they were creating stories that were not meant to be read as truth or contain actual, correct historiography. How do we know? Because of 1)-5). And above all, because 6) OUR God said so (to the patriarchs (p.c.), and they should know).
xxx/ellauri187.html on line 180: In 2007 Caryn James, commenting on Not Remotely Controlled in the New York Times, said that "at their best, Siegel’s scattershot observations offer a kind of drive-by brilliance," but that he often "wildly overstates his case or ignores inconvenient evidence."
xxx/ellauri218.html on line 150: Ralph was the inspiration for the animated character Fred Flintstone. Alice (née Alice Gibson), played in the first nine skits from 1951 to January 1952 by Pert Kelton, and by Audrey Meadows for all remaining episodes, is Ralph's patient but sharp-tongued wife of 14 years. She often finds herself bearing the brunt of Ralph's tantrums and demands, which she returns with biting sarcasm. She is levelheaded, in contrast to Ralph's pattern of inventing various schemes to enhance his wealth or his pride. She sees his schemes' unworkability, but he becomes angry and ignores her advice (and by the end of the episode, her misgivings almost always prove correct). She has grown accustomed to his empty threats—such as "One of these days, POW!!! Right in the kisser!", "BANG, ZOOM!" or "You're going to the Moon!"— to which she usually replies, "Ahhh, shaddap!" Alice runs the finances of the Kramden household, and Ralph frequently has to beg her for money to pay for his lodge dues or crazy schemes. Alice studied to be a secretary before her marriage and works briefly in that capacity when Ralph is laid off. Wilma Flintstone is based on Alice Kramden.
10