Sentences with phrase «interpretation of a certain person»

Literally, as crazy as it is, because for whatever reason, I still don't know to this day — I have my own interpretation of a certain person that poisoned the well with Tony in regards to me — Tony hates me now and badmouths me constantly.

Not exact matches

@Akhan It is not what they did to the US... its what certain interpretations of the koran does to its own people.

How can so many people be so certain about the interpretation of Revelation, but at the same time, so different?

In particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itself).

(I've had people assume I hold certain typically «side A» interpretations because I'm in the affirming camp — to the point of being ridiculed for beliefs I don't actually hold, which is quite frustrating.)

So, this means that there is ONE valid interpretation to any text, unless the author purposely designed the text in such a way as to make people ponder various interpretations (which would be a certain kind of genre, but not most texts).

However, the current interpretation by certain people is that the government should guarantee freedom from religion, including any public expression of religion, and that was not the founders intent at all.

Because people would have different interpretations of certain jokes.

I think of what could have become of our little black pit - retriever or our (loud) finnish spitz - retriever mix (we prefer «spitzer» only as a joke — no political interpretation intended) and am grateful for the chain of people involved in saving both from certain death.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

In Lord Simon's opinion, such an interpretation was borne out by the purpose of the legal rule, ie «that reasonable people may venture out in public without the risk of outrage to certain minimum accepted standards of decency».

China's Supreme People's Court («SPC») recently issued two pieces of judicial interpretations, namely, the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Related...