Sentences with phrase «points of disagreement on»

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.

Not exact matches

At one point on Thursday, the site was acquiring 31,000 new users an hour — many of whom flocked to there because of a disagreement with Facebook over its policy requiring real names, which some say is unfair to -LSB-...]

My disagreement with Weigel on this point might be a quibble except that our differing understandings of what fueled cultural secularization point to different causes, and thus to different cures.

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.

«Although there may still be areas of disagreement between the parties on issues of implementation, the importance of those areas of potential concern is uncertain, as is the necessity of this Court's involvement at this point to resolve them.»

There is thus some evidence of convergence from the former «objective» and «subjective» extremes towards a middle position on each of the three points of disagreement.

By the end of the Assembly, as Kenneth Slack pointed out, «most of the members felt that there was more danger from undue stress on the evangelism of individuals than the other way round, despite widely expressed anxiety, given expression by Stott, that liberation in political, social and economic sense was in danger of replacing salvation from sin at the heart of the redeeming gospel».73 There was no doubt that, despite the narrowing of the range of disagreements, important differences continued, especially with regard to the meaning of salvation and the program of dialogue with people of other faiths.

Christians should agree that there exists a perfect orthodoxy in the mind of God; however, the proliferation of schisms, disagreements, and divisions throughout church history points to the fact that we as sinful and fallible humans are imperfect at agreeing precisely on that orthodoxy.

What is especially intriguing, moreover, is the observable convergence of these essays, despite incidental disagreements and the very different strata of Christian tradition on which they draw, towards a point of intersection that is difficult to describe but seems to be very near the heart of the mystery whose herald and sign the historic church has claimed to be.

An area of basic disagreement is the role of ethical principles, such as freedom and equality, which most realists, including Morgenthau, who is at times ambiguous on the point, deny.

glad someone has time and patience to spell this out... i have lost patience with most on this site who have been in denial on these points for so long it has become dispiriting... the number of people who spent time telling barcelona that ramsey was not for sale was as big an indication as any to me that delusion had become systemic among too many fans only disagreement is with wilshire..

Seaver's disagreement on these points with Met Chairman of the Board M. Donald Grant and General Manager Joe McDonald was so intense that it spilled like hot lava into the New York press.

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!

«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.

It's easier to imagine the Liberal Democrats doing so: one doesn't need to list the rows that have taken place over VAT, student finance, housing benefit, the immigration cap and so on to prove the point (though some of the Government's biggest disagreements, such as those over prisons policy or the EU, are concentrated within one of the Coalition parties, the Conservatives, rather than between them).

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.

As Anastasia and Christian argue back and forth with only minor variations over admittedly major points of contention — his possessive nature infringing on her charmed career, their disagreement over when to start a family, whether she should remove her bikini top on the beach or not — Leonard's lumpen script zeroes in on a tinny thriller subplot, centered on the violent, mysteriously vengeful stalking of Anastasia's smarmy ex-boss Hyde (Eric Johnson) as the main attraction.

As water runs out and panic sets in, the men kidnap a lone Native American (Rod Rondeaux) they suspect of spying on them and debate whether to kill him or let him lead them to safety instead; their disagreement brings longstanding tensions within the group — in particular, between Meek and hardy, plain - spoken frontier wife Emily (the wondrous Michelle Williams)-- to breaking point.

But the most amazing stories are onscreen, as the committee co-chairs, Paul Mangwana and David Mwonzora, jockey for their points of view and learn to work together in spite of their fundamental disagreement on not just what's good for the country, but what's good for their own day - to - day survival.

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.

The key points from each strand are highlighted as follows: Early Identification and support • Early identification of need: health and development review at 2/2.5 years • Support in early years from health professionals: greater capacity from health visiting services • Accessible and high quality early years provision: DfE and DfH joint policy statement on the early years; tickell review of EYFS; free entitlement of 15 hours for disadvantaged two year olds • A new approach to statutory assessment: education, health and care plan to replace statement • A more efficient statutory assessment process: DoH to improve the provision and timeliness of health advice; to reduce time limit for current statutory assessment process to 20 weeks Giving parent's control • Supporting families through the system: a continuation of early support resources • Clearer information for parents: local authorities to set out a local offer of support; slim down requirements on schools to publish SEN information • Giving parents more control over support and funding for their child: individual budget by 2014 for all those with EHC plan • A clear choice of school: parents will have rights to express a preference for a state - funded school • Short breaks for carers and children: a continuation in investment in short breaks • Mediation to resolve disagreements: use of mediation before a parent can register an appeal with the Tribunal

However, one of the major points of disagreement was the administration's insistence on linking teacher evaluations to test scores.

I would just like to point out that as near as I can tell, 100 % of the commenting on this thread not done by Mr Kozlowski is critical, expressing disagreement, dissatisfaction and in some cases offence and a feeling of being mistreated and misrepresented.

If so what specifically are then points of disagreement and on what basis would you disagree?

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.

My point in my response to Hank Roberts (28) was that (most of) the ongoing disagreements are not on the reality of a 20th century temperature rise, but whether it is exceptional and to what degree it can be demonstrated to be due to Man's CO2 emissions.

Just over half in the survey, 51 percent, say there is «a lot of disagreement among scientists» over the existence of global warming, down 11 points from 2009 but still higher than the share who say scientists agree with one another on the issue, 43 percent.

Naively I once thought that, while it obviously had its point of view (as with any news source) and I would disagree with its conclusions sometimes, I assumed that such disagreements were honest and based on a fair appraisal of all the available facts.

However, my main reason for raising this is that when acting as a «normal» Expert, one of the requirements in most cases is an Experts meeting with my counterpart on the other side of the case, which is designed to produce an agreed document that highlights points of agreement and points of disagreement (and a short summary of why there is disagreement on these points).

On each of these points, there is widespread disagreement, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.

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.

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.

Further, the Cook et al. study is misleading as to what there is consensus on and glosses over major points of uncertainty and disagreement in the scientific community.

These two points constitute the essence of the scientific disagreement on whether or not CAGW is a real threat.

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.

Tim Lambert links to this article by Eric Pooley in Slate's The Big Moneye which points out that, for all the disagreement among economists regarding the details of climate change policy, there is substantial consensus on the following main points (i) the cost of action to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will be of the order of 1 per cent of GDP (ii) a strong mitigation policy is preferable to business as usual

Turn of phrase, I'm trying to deemphasize the point of disagreement and emphasize the point of what I assume we agree on but I note you're unable to let go until you hear the bone snap.

Unless your disagreement with climate science is very particular, on a subtle point; where the predictions can be checked without reference to a full model, your not even doing science (or at best, your alternative climate science is as undeveloped as standard climate science was at that and the end of the 19th century).

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.

The core of the argument is a disagreement over the issue of private car traffic in the city's streets, with the city hesitant to reduce road space for cars in favor of public transport solutions on the surface, while proponents of surface transit point out that less car traffic in the city center would create better urbanism.

«At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached.

If you want to get a somewhat wider discussion of this point going in the meantime, feel free to forward this to whoever you wish along with your disagreement, while we wait on the response from AGU.

Without any doubt, a portion of the Wegman discussion on Tree Rings contains language that is «substantially similar» to Bradley 1999, but the majority of the subsection is expressed in Wegman's paraphrase and includes specific points of disagreement (indeed, DC takes particular umbrage at such disagreement.)

Focusing on points of disagreement between Wegman and relevant source material would seem to be the only thing of relevance here.

Clearly, however, this is a disagreement among the Courts of Appeal on this point, which may require resolution by the Supreme Court at some point.

The reason is that I can't find the words to properly state my disagreement, I just can't get on board with a single one of your points.

But the very fact of including the dissenting opinion may give a false impression of disagreement when there is really almost unanimous consensus on a particular point.

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.