Sentences with phrase «labeling people by»

This triggers a fight or flight response — as does labeling people by ranking.

Not exact matches

Temperaments, however, are not that easily influenced by «hear - say»: shy people labeled outgoing won't take fire; and schmoozers labeled shy will just continue to babble and hug on.

Based in New York City, the organization was labeled by Google as a «think tank» focused on developing technology to help people in emerging markets get online for the first time.

We are also hiring people for our private label sourcing team in New York and to grow our 50 - person Fab Designed By You (Fab DBY) custom - furniture group that continues to operate out of our Berlin office,» said the post, authored by Fab.com CEO Jason GoldberBy You (Fab DBY) custom - furniture group that continues to operate out of our Berlin office,» said the post, authored by Fab.com CEO Jason Goldberby Fab.com CEO Jason Goldberg.

At a time when the music industry is dominated by three major labels - Universal, Sony and Warner - will.i.am told CNBC that programs like «The X Factor» and «The Voice,» which he has been a judge on for two years, provide a valuable means for people to become successful artists.

You don't start a new church because the people in the old one were mean, and little is accomplished by labeling winners and losers.

We can't judge another person's spiritual state simply by a label («lesbian», «drunkard», «adulterer», etc.), and all of us are sinners called to God's repentance and peace.

I shun labels of all kinds but am identified by others as a feminist, so often people will ask me if I think God is a man or a woman.

Well I sometimes use the Christian label so as not to be oppressed by people like you — for example, when filling out religious preferences for organizations like the Boy Scouts.

Lately I am very discouraged by the need for so many people to place a label on the person next to them.

Naming / defining is an exercise of power over others, so perhaps naming other persons made in the Divine image, with the potential to become godlike, by labeling them «believers» or «unbelievers» is a failure to see all people as God sees them, children of the one true God.

BillyD said: «Without arbitrarily labeling as mass mental illness, how do explain the personally experiential, spiritual revelations of countless people throughout the centuries, many by people previously not convinced by the faith of others?»

Without arbitrarily labeling as mass mental illness, how do explain the personally experiential, spiritual revelations of countless people throughout the centuries, many by people previously not convinced by the faith of others?

I label people ill for talking to and believing in imaginary creatures, especially to the degree they then insist others live their lives by that imaginary friend's pretend rules.

By dangerously labeling it a comedy, it allows racist people who actually watch it to dismiss its message instead of learning something from it.

The thing that's so insidious is that this «poisons the well» on another person by innuendo or outright labeling, especially if someone's behavior under stress * seems * to support the conclusion pronounced against them.

Keen labels such «dis - eased» persons Homo Faber (man the fabricator, or worker)- man bent on creating his own meaning by eliminating all elements of mystery.

and throwing the 3 Bs at people is known by psychologists as «labelling».

By labeling people groups (i.e., Christians) in negative ways, it makes it easier for one group (liberals?)

I only meant that as a «self - designation» both gay and straight people need to stop labeling each other and classifying themselves by their sexual orientation, and maybe seek to classify themselves the way Paul instructed people to do, as being of the class that is «in Christ.»

The term «Atheist» is a label used by Christian only, not by people who see the fantasy (not necessarily the folly) that this stories are all about.

Before I enumerate them let me make it clear that today I despise the practice of dehumanizing an individual or group of people by labeling them....

People spend way too much effort throwing around labels and pretending to be offended by them, and not nearly enough time discussing substance, like whether the poor people of the world would be better off or worse off under a collectivist sPeople spend way too much effort throwing around labels and pretending to be offended by them, and not nearly enough time discussing substance, like whether the poor people of the world would be better off or worse off under a collectivist speople of the world would be better off or worse off under a collectivist system.

Perhaps emboldened by that query, another chimed in, «When people label all exercise of power as inherently bad or suspect, power issues or needs don't just go away.

After referring to another person as an «idiot,» and following by labeling religious people as «sheep,» you state:

BARBARIC??? Before we label «Barbaric» other countries system we should see how «Barbaric» is for the US, corporate and financial system NOT to give a damn about the real American working people who support [by being enslaved and blackmailed] the wealth of those who, instead, destroyed the economy and what was hardly achieved in 60 years!

As Frank Viola and I hope to show in a forthcoming essay, the label of «heresy» was only applied to people who not only denied, but activity worked against the foundational doctrines of orthodoxy, viz. the doctrines espoused by the Nicene and Apostle's creed.

hindu filthy sign of hinduism, pagan ism labeled as Star of David by hindu Jew's, pagan secular s has nothing to do with Israelite but top view of meeting of two hindu, fabricated pyramid to illustrate god hood of two hindu, criminal person's.

The person they were is gone and all anyone can see is the label given by others.

While those who were labeled as «sinners» by the religious people loved to hang out with Jesus, those who were religious often found themselves at odds with Jesus.

But when we see the people on the other side of the debate as the enemy (by calling them names, labeling them or demeaning their convictions), we miss the point of what «fighting for our faith» is supposed to be about in the first place.

I would suggest that by attaching labels to people it makes it easier to de-humanise and therefore easier to insult and offend.

A one - size - fits - all label seems to simplify a difficult matter, but it simplifies too much by simply removing a whole category of persons from the human care list.

While I'm no fan of labels --(and «emerging» or «emergent» can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people)-- it would be dishonest for me to say that I have not been influenced by many of the writers and speakers that are associated with this movement.

Contrived by an 19th century man who propagated a worldview that «fearful people» adopt, giving it the Nazi Salute lest they be labeled with the opposition.

Our and «All» Creations ever being created by God, a name above all mannerisms to - be-named such as Jehova or Elohim or any other name calling and / or labellings other then the most simplstic and of God should all be stricken from all peoples» minds and doctrines and teachings!

Putting the label of «anxious» on someone who already struggles with anxiety disorder is extremely discouraging and can tempt that person into believing that they are defined by their disorder.

The more things we label «must haves» the more we de-power people by making it increasingly difficult from them to build communities (churches) in their tribes.

Unfortunately, «Christian» has become a term that carries a lot of pretentiousness, so it seems to me that we might need to do a bit triage by shelving the label «Christian» if it helps us figure out what it means to be human, which may help reinvigorate the term as people see Christ in our human engagements rather than our church attendance.

Whether formulated by Durkheim (a system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things), by Weber (that which finally makes events meaningful), or by Tillich (whatever is of ultimate concern) religion in its «classical» sense refers not so much to labels on a church building as to the imagery (myth, theology, and so forth) by which people make sense of their lives — their «moral architecture,» if you will.6 That human beings differ in their sensitivity to and success in this matter of «establishing meaning» there can be no doubt.

This is clear cut and most people (except that small group that can't make up their mind) can self - identifiy without the baggage heaped on the «atheist» label by the anti-theists.

But I defy such nonsense and refuse to be limited or labeled simply because I can not be understood by most people.

This would be a much smaller set of people than she, at other places, seems to include as emerging (but without such a label put on either by themselves or others).

The extreme, high - tech procedures imagined by ordinary people are rarely the subject of debate; it is simple feeding tubes and common antibiotics that are labeled «unnatural» by «ethicists» - in the thought that the life which they sustain is also unnatural and should not be continued.

Religions are about truth absolute GOD, and hindu gay ism, hind love ism is by persons hindu secular ism, self center ism, denial of truth absolute GOD, no need to label yourself to be of truth absolute GOD, while one is a hindu gay, ignorant hind lover in defiance of truth absolute GOD.

Obviously everyone needs to make their own decisions about how they eat and why, but I don't think it could hurt for people to be a bit more knowledgeable about what these labels actually mean and respect the people choosing / having to eat by them.

If you're trying to get more calcium (a higher intake is recommended for adolescents and older people, particularly postmenopausal women, for example), don't be influenced by the words on the label.

When something says «gluten - free» the implication is that it contains no wheat, barley, or rye — and a person that is allergic, rather than gluten - intolerant (the two are somewhat different) might be led astray by the gluten - free label.

Results from studies that only assess consumer preferences for different labelling systems, may be affected by other factors, including people's familiarity with a particular system and social desirability associated with particular responses, such as choosing the system that is seen to portray the most information.

«Because consumers could be confused by the new label with its numerous changes, a robust consumer education effort will be needed to ensure that people continue to understand how the revised label can be used to make informed choices and maintain healthful dietary practices.