Sentences with phrase «people question their judgment»

«That just makes people question their judgment.

Not exact matches

She and her colleagues found that we make snap judgments about other people that answer two primary questions:

That question is being answered in many different ways in this generation, but the final judgment on sexual action is what it means for the fulfilment of persons now and throughout life.

My ultimate standard of moral judgment is found when I face the questions: Does this act bring life or does it bring death to the persons involved?

While young people may be afraid to share their doubts and questions in evangelical churches for fear of judgment and condemnation, they may be just as afraid to share their doubts and questions in mainline churches because no one seems to be talking about those issues!

The Justices write as if this question can be ignored or constitutes merely a «value judgment» about which reasonable people can disagree.

When we turn, in the light of these preaching comments, to pastoral care, the critical question is whether the attempts to understand and accept, to get inside the other person's frame of reference, to apprehend and help to clarify the nature of his specific conflicting feelings, all together imply the absence of judgment.

«I think if we change that step and really become students of each other's narratives and ask questions about why people perceive certain things in a certain way instead of jumping to judgment, then I think we'll be better equipped to have more diversity in local churches.»

A Yes answer to any of these questions brought further questioning as to whether the person responding thought his or her judgment or impartiality would be clouded by the circumstances.

Richard Barnet and John Cavanagh, who judge this inchoate NGO uprising as presently «the only force we see that can break the global gridlock,» finish their important study with a judgment about its high stakes: «The great question of our age is whether people, acting with the spirit, energy, and urgency our collective crisis requires, can develop a democratic global consciousness rooted in authentic local communities.

The conclusion they draw is that the question needs to be returned to the judgment of the American people in the political arena.

I have encountered the question in my own ministry and I find it to be distracting and unhelpful, in part because it assumes that individual judgment trumps a community of people committed to truth - telling.

I also understand that people, especially women, who are childfree are subject to all sorts of stupid questioning and judgment.

For the most part though, the questions that arises most often when people see public breastfeeding are politely asked, whether or not they come from a place of judgment or curiosity.

Most of the time, I think people are honestly curious and don't understand the patience of answering this question multiple time without it turning into self - judgment for the mother.

Some people in a PRWeek article questioned Ed Milliband's judgment»... Another Labour source said: «It's a little bit depressing that a politician [Ed Milliband] should think the solution to all their problems is to hire another journalist.»

During the last months of Fliedner's tenure, where he helped land the convictions of former NYPD Officer Peter Liang and Officer Joel Edouard, he questioned Thompson's leadership toward staffers and judgment for allegedly handing executive positions to unqualified persons.

The first asked the simple question of whether the presence of nonverbal information (vs. the absence) would significantly influence the accuracy of people's character judgments.

Second, in a judgment call, the question of authorship should be construed in terms of the relative contribution of the various persons to the final publishable product.

But, he says, «this kind of question requires people to make a lot of judgments.»

This is something that always scares me in the realm of science and health, when a person's own opinions clouds their judgment and causes them to form a theory and only ask the questions that will give them the answers they seek.

Yet Jury does offer older teens and mature audiences opportunities to address many questions about our legal system and the possibility of one person being able to sway the entire judgment system purely by their talent of manipulation.

That's not at all surprising given that it's a very complicated question involving a lot of judgment calls on which reasonable people can disagree.

Questioning people whose judgment you know and trust speeds both your ability to make decisions and the confidence you have in those decisions.

«All my work in general deals with the question of identity, understood as the system of judgments about a person, culture or phenomenon.

Citizens pass judgment on the most complex questions by acknowledging the authority of what qualified people know.

I'm often amused that people who claim to be «skeptics,» making judgments solely on evidence, accept without question wild assertions such as the idea that any attempt to limit carbon emissions will «destroy the entire socioeconomic structure of the world and starve developing nations of much needed energy.»

It can be argued that the judgment in Jia is already sufficiently clear to answer the first question as the Court had clearly stated there that «there is no need to determine the reasons for recourse to that support or to raise the question whether the person concerned is able to support himself by taking up paid employment» (para. 36).

The question is whether the evidence presented by the party challenging the judgment convinces the reviewing court that a reasonable person would conclude that the judge did not perform her sworn duty to review and consider the evidence with an open mind: Teskey.

The question is whether the evidence presented by the party challenging the judgment convinces the reviewing court that a reasonable person would conclude that the judge did not perform her sworn duty to review and consider the evidence with an open mind.

Naturally, intimate relationships between two people entail situations that are known directly only to the participants themselves, so many cases involve making judgments about questions of fact.

Advocate General Bot first focused on the question whether the practice of holding the convicted person liable for the translation costs of the judgment in a special procedure for the recognition of foreign judgments is precluded by the Interpretation and Translation Directive.

Guidance is given in s 14 (2): for the purposes of s 14 (1) an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

In the Court of Appeal's judgment in Young v Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds)[2006] EWCA Civ 1534, [2007] 1 All ER 895, Lord Justice Dyson summarised the effect of Adams: «The claimant is to be assumed to be a person who has suffered the injury in question, but in all other respects he is to be assumed simply to be a reasonable person.»

Micro-match Having listened to the disputed expert evidence — and studied pictorial depictions of the ear in question — the court's judgment was that ear print comparison was capable of providing information which could identify the person who had left such a print on a surface where minutiae concerning the ear could be identified and matched.

«(1)[Subject to subsection (1A) below,] In sections 11 and 12 of this Act references to a person's date of knowledge are references to the date on which he first had knowledge of the following facts --(a) that the injury in question was significant... (2) For the purposes of this section an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

I am voting against the petition for rehearing because the views of the American people on the death penalty for child rape were, to tell the truth, irrelevant to the majority's decision in this case.The majority opinion, after an unpersuasive attempt to show that a consensus against the penalty existed, in the end came down to this:» [T] he Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.»

In a recent judgment, Justice Lynne Smith of the British Columbia Supreme Court identified grounds upon which to reopen the question of the constitutionality of the criminal prohibition against physician - assisted dying, claiming, in effect, that while the Supreme Court had at the time of the Rodriguez been correct in stating that a blanket prohibition on physician - assisted dying would be rationally connected to the goal of protecting the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, such a prohibition is overbroad (you don't need to deny everyone the right to physician - assisted suicide in order to protect society's most vulnerable persons) and grossly disproportionate in its effects.

The B.C. Supreme Court considered these questions, and the judgment is great news for people who earn part of their income from tips.

Consequently, taking into account the outcome of the judgment pointed in para 57 clearly stating that «the answer to the question referred is that Article 26 (1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as a nine - hour night - time curfew, in conjunction with the monitoring of the person concerned by means of an electronic tag, an obligation to report to a police station at fixed times on a daily basis or several times a week, and a ban on applying for foreign travel documents, does not, in principle, have regard towards the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of all those measures; it is restrictive as to give rise to a deprivation of liberty comparable to that arising from imprisonment and thus to be classified as «detention» within the meaning of that provision, which it is nevertheless for the referring court to ascertain».

The key outcome of the judgment is that the question of whether a disabled person who lacks capacity to consent to a placement by a public body is deprived of their liberty in their particular living arrangements is an objective one, to be answered by reference to whether they are free to leave and how closely their movement and social interaction is controlled.

Handing down its judgment this week, the High Court said the central question was whether rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984 empowers the coroner to exclude properly interested persons and their legal representatives from part of an inquest and to receive and later take into account closed material received in their absence.

«Obviously» is more a judgment call, but comes down to the question of whether there is a path between the datum and the specific person which a person of average intelligence can see, versus (non-obviously) a hypothetical scenario whereby one might be able to connect a datum to a specific person.

Many within the bitcoin community are accusing the company of making a shallow statistical approach with a poor judgment, while others are questioning if the data can be seen as valid — a lot of people could have visited the donation form just to see the Bitcoin option.

Susan and I talked about how the book came to be, and our own experiences with societal judgment based on our marital choices — a late first - time marrier (43), Susan was barraged with questions by people wondering what was wrong with her whereas I, a twice married and divorced woman, was seen as someone who «failed» at marriage (twice!)

People will always have questions and judgments.