Sentences with phrase «points of disagreement about»

Yes, and that's why I go on to unpack the notion of climate change to its consequences: «From this question of degree emerge points of disagreement about the likely material consequences of warming, each of which are also questions of degree.

From this question of degree emerge points of disagreement about the likely material consequences of warming, each of which are also questions of degree.

Not exact matches

There are borderline sexual assault scenarios that are viewed as standard procedure by much of the PUA crowd — this is clearly not the place to argue that but I feel it'd be wrong not to point out my disagreement with that point — but above and beyond all that are incredibly dehumanizing assumptions about both men and women that underly the process.

This brings us then to the real point of disagreement between Plantinga and Griffin: the question of whether every actual world must necessarily contain self - determining entities and hence whether an omnipotent being can unilaterally bring about any world devoid of genuine evil.

Here's an article I just read that I think ties in well with Jennifer's point about the level of disagreement on this blog.

When everyone is able to know and be friends with all of the other people involved in the disagreements, there is more potential for each person to see the others» point of view and to genuinely care about their issues when they may not have seemed important otherwise.

But of course, this argument misses the entire point of your disagreement with me about what happens to unfruitful branches.

In saying all this, I am merely pointing to another layer of disagreement with Newman: Ultimately we part ways not just over our conclusions about dogma but also over our assumptions concerning the relationship of Church, Scripture, and tradition.

The fourth fact about the Catholic Church is that there are many points of disagreement on social policy among Catholics; there is no one Catholic line on most public issues.

Let us be clear: this is not about minor disagreements on fine points of law, or partisan disagreements.

While the document revealed important disagreements about the role of journalism, there was a general agreement on a few crucial points: journalists must report relentlessly, get outside of the bubble, call a lie a lie, follow the money and don't get distracted by Twitter!

in fact, I would wager that if you get under the surface of most disagreements about the rights of LGBT individuals, they will in truth be about this very point.

«When he made his about - turn on a UK referendum he thought that he could close down disagreement within his party and force other member states to give in to Britain's point of view.

First, to the question of transforming your home into a radiation zone... There is, not surprisingly, disagreement about this point.

The first half concerns Brooklyn high - school student Chantel (Ariyan Johnson) as she deals with academic disagreements with her teachers (at one point getting into shouting match about the Holocaust), takes advantage of her boyfriend's wallet to go on a shopping spree, and confronts yuppies in the Upper West Side gourmet shop where she works.

To measure tolerance we included four statements on the survey to which students could express their level of agreement or disagreement: 1) People who disagree with my point of view bother me; 2) Artists whose work is critical of America should not be allowed to have their work shown in art museums; 3) I appreciate hearing views different from my own; and 4) I think people can have different opinions about the same thing.

Tolerance was also measured with statements to which students could express agreement or disagreement, ranging from «People who disagree with my point of view bother me,» to «I think people can have different opinions about the same thing.»

One point of disagreement, about the last few people giving up hope.

Yes, it is blunt about the Chinese point of view, and there are indeed areas of real disagreement, but overall he is looking forward.

Pierrehumbert unwittingly makes the point, I believe, that disagreement about what goes into the models (e.g. arguably unrealistic radiative forcing in Spencer's) is precisely why there is no consensus on the subject of AGW, media repetition of that insistence notwithstanding.

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.

The disagreement was always about the scope and depth of natural variability, on the point where data adjustments become statistical manipulations, on gaps and uncertainties in data, on the proper use and limitations of climate models and on chaos in climate and models.

Jennifer Francis and Kevin Trenberth speak on Chris Mooney's Point of Inquiry here about their disagreement on polar amplification.

My disagreement with Hooke's assessment is based on the lack of clarity in the assignment of the true causes of quote # 1 and then complaining about the lack of understanding in point # 2.

So on Lucia's last point about hashing out disagreements, we knew we had disagreed with one of the other 23 raters, but we did not know with whom.

Perception of Scientists & Evidence Changing But back to the issue of growing scientific evidence of warming: The percentage of people who think most scientists think climate change is happening dropped 13 point to 34 %, while 40 % of the American public believes there is «a lot of disagreement» among scientists about whether warming is happening or not.

Now given that scenario you've stated that «the purpose of the law society regulations (and tax regulations) is to protect consumers of legal (tax) services, not their suppliers (a point sometimes lost on the LSUC, and clearly lost on taxi regulators)» and I agree there's no disagreement about that.

But the starting point for any conversation about collaborative divorce has to be an overall shift away from the «us versus them» mentality of divorce litigation into something that allows people to work through their conflicts and disagreements with integrity.

When we are faced with relationship conflict — whether that be disagreements about money or the trauma of infidelity — it's easy to point the finger and blame the other party for the challenges and hardships of the partnership.

Think about this disagreement with your partner from the perspective of a neutral third party who wants the best for all involved; a person who sees things from a neutral point of view.

«Staff splitting,» as mentioned earlier, is a much - discussed phenomenon in which professionals treating borderline patients begin arguing and fighting about a patient, the treatment plan, or the behavior of the other professionals with the patient... arguments among staff members and differences in points of view, traditionally associated with staff splitting, are seen as failures in synthesis and interpersonal process among the staff rather than as a patient's problem... Therapist disagreements over a patient are treated as potentially equally valid poles of a dialectic.