Sentences with phrase «think debates like»

Not exact matches

When I think of that debate, it's like looking at a photograph where I'm like 19 or 20 thinking about those things.

Generally, industry experts and established thought leaders put Twitter followers in the $ 2.50 to $ 4.00 value range and Facebook likes in the $ 23 to $ 136 range — but even those values are open to debate.

While I've got a new comment open, though, here's my thoughts on the Roth debate: It's generally good to diversify your funds as much as possible, tax-wise; nobody can say with absolute certainty what the tax system will look like numerous years from now (although the smart money says that it'll probably be even more complex than our current system).

The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House has been like a series of lightning bolts across European debates and thinking.

Wow, what a fun thinking about all these years of debates with fb representatives telling me «consumers don't want privacy rights anymore» and «a startup (sic) like facebook shouldn't be overburdened».

I think this is like debating between two pretty good companies.

Leaders» debates — like the one last night — are all about what those asking the questions think is important.

If you look around you, I think you'll find that the debates we're having are over fundamental aspects of theology — but people are so far from the truth that they seem like hairs to them.

At that point, it was about masturbation only (no one had made a comparison to homosexuality), so, without much personal stake in the debate, I thought to myself «See, this is why people don't like the answers, not (always) because it doesn't let them do what they want, but because the answers are sometimes very poor indeed.»

Scholasticism Theology moved from the monastery to the university Western theology is an intellectual discipline rather than a mystical pursuit Western theology is over-systematized Western Theology is systematized, based on a legal model rather than a philosophical model Western theologians debate like lawyers, not like rabbis Reformation Catholic reformers were excommunicated and formed Protestant churches Western churches become guarantors of theological schools of thought Western church membership is often contingent on fine points of doctrine Some western Christians believe that definite beliefs are incompatible with tolerance The atmosphere arose in which anyone could start a church The legal model for western theology intensifies despite the rediscovery of the East

You don't think the «elephant in the room» of OUR time is the fact that we awkwardly pretend affirmative action isn't racist; abortion isn't murder; people compare the gay marriage debate to 300 + years of black slavery, oppression, and / or murder; and the major political parties act like Ron Paul doesn't exist?

Besides that, you might see a lot of heated debate on boards like these, but in real life, do you think that atheists seek out Christians in the street or in the stores or at the workplace and berate them?

And I think that brings us back to Bostontola's original point: When lay people debate science (like evolution vs. creationism), that should raise red flags.

Now at some time in the eternal security debate, after all this talk about grace, someone says something like, «I think you're taking this grace thing a little bit too far.

I think that the church has far more pressing and «simple» concerns than a debate over premillenialism and the like.

Act and Being, like his dissertation Sanctorum Communio, is fundamental to any attempt to appreciate Bonhoeffer's thought within the context of theological and philosophical debate.

You say you don't know gods will because to try and think like god is too hard (which for the record I think is a cop out in any debate or discussion about god that I understand you really believe it and are not trying to duck around a question, but to say I don't know, god is too powerful to understand sort of halts discussion from there)

You say you don't know gods will because to try and think like god is too hard (which for the record I think is a cop out in any debate or discussion about god that I understand you really believe it and are not trying to duck around a question, but to say I don't know, god is too powerful to understand sort of halts discussion from there) but you also are saying to speak with him on a daily basis.

In general, based on the 2003 interview, it doesn't look like Santorum knows how to talk or think about this issue very well; he doesn't, for example, appear to know how to distinguish the three levels of the right to privacy debate: a) the natural rights level, b) the Constitutional level, and c) the plain - old law level, state and federal.

Steve... I think we're floggin» a dead horse here, but for what it's worth, understand that I'm not trying to convince you to think like I do, rather I wd hope that room wd be made for many theological differences.To think discuss and debate theology is well supported by the New Testament and history, and is perfectly within the bounds of what it means to engage our minds with the subject at hand.Theologians and biblical scholars have done this very thing for centuries, revealing a plethora of opinion on the evolving world of biblical studies.Many capable authors have written and debated the common themes as well as the differences between Paul, John, Jesus, the synoptics, etc..

I think of examples like Shakespeare and Socrates, where there is much debate about the true author of the words and yet no one debates the value of the words themselves regardless of the author.

I will be happy to calmy and rationally debate you as long as you would like, but if you think I simply don't understand your argument because I don't agree with it, then you've made a poor deduction.

There is even a debate between those who think the devotee depends entirely on God's grace, like a kitten picked up by its mother, and those who think some human effort is also required like a baby monkey who has to cling on to its mother.

You can not have much of a debate in a comment section like this one, so I do not understand why you think this is a problem.

that our bishops be urged to form a panel of highly qualified men and women for handling any future incidents of this sort (they should not only be well informed but well used to debating), and also for seeing in a more general way that the Catholic case is properly presented or defended in the media: one thinks for instance of men like Professors Peter Hodgson and John Haldane or Father Aidan Nichols); 3.

Or, if you prefer philosophical examples, consider the recent debates between proponents of a unified cognitive science, a science that would demonstrate mental events to be either strictly identical with physical events or epiphenomena of them — people like Daniel Dennett and Patricia Churchland — and those who think that there is a philosophically irreducible difference between the physical and the mental — that is, people like Thomas Nagel and John Searle.

And here we are still debating it, just like then... that's pretty thought provoking in itself.

You might not think that logic used in a debate like this makes a difference, but it does.

Perhaps it is good to air these thoughts and debates among a group of like minded colleagues or peers or friends instead.

In response to the excellent article by Roy Peachey I should like to add my own thoughts to this continuing debate that, as Mr Peachey...

I hope it gets overturned and then each aspect of it really gets debated and thought about and passed slowly one peice at a time, rather than a mad rush like this law was passed.

«I think the debate over America's moral position comes down to this: Republicans want the best outcomes based on solutions that fit into preconceived notions of what society should look like.

I think a trade like this, even if actually impossible, is fun to debate... which is why we are here in the first place.

Personally, I have always liked to actually debate one on one — and of course with anyone else who is interested — with those who post thought provoking comments.

Think of it almost like school shootings: whenever one happens, the gun debate is reopened.

I would say that Xhaka is more of a deep lying playmaker than a DM, I would like to see a CM partner for him who will put themselves about and put their foot in for the tackle, I think Coquelin has done better at this in pre season although if he and Xhaka can form a partnership is still up for debate.

I thought people here were debating about two or three seasons back why he should be our top striker.When I thought the Monaco match was the icing on the cake to show how average he was it seems just like Wenger we» will never learn our lesson.Now people our okay with him being a super sub which is debatable.Giroud was a super sub in games last season because he wasn't played when he was supposed to.He's not your ideal super sub because he very hardly creates but rather requires people to create for him.Most of the time super subs are the one's who tend to create the chances and open up spaces in the opposition defence.West ham are ready to pay and hence we should demand more from them.We can then use the money from his sale on far better players.Given the same seasons, time and chances a lot of average strikers can do better than what he did.This is because Arsenal create a lot of chances and it just needs someone who can finish.Goodbye!.

«For a youngster to come into a club like Arsenal, and thinks he is OK to go out less than 48 hours before a game, it says there is something wrong in the dressing room,» Wright said on Sky Sports» The Debate.

guys i cant believe Laurent Koscielny, is the same height as vamerlyn i taught he was taller how the hell could wenger buy a defender the same height as the one we have when the nature of english football requires u to have good height at the back to prevent aerial bombardment as in the past and of course physical problems with the likes of stoke and chelsea have wenger not learn from five trophyless seasons i cant believe this and still debating if to buy a new defender i must say i had optimism for the new season but after seeing this i think we are a dead horse again hell if this is the case then cesc should bolt and go to barca wenger nothing personal but i think ur an absolute idiot............

Then, for 50 minutes, the young men talked, with Bailys loosely guiding the conversation around the theme of what it takes to go «outside of the box» in your thinking and decision - making — a topic that was broad enough to encompass both a discussion about what it might feel like to leave Illinois for college and a long debate about the experience that Rashid, one of the group members, had had the previous weekend, when he was jumped by two guys while he was walking from his grandmother's house to a convenience store to buy M&M's.

I think about the debates around how many AP courses a high school student should take or whether to apply to 8 schools or 10 and realize the luxury of worrying about problems like these.

I invited Mike to comment on that article if he desired, and ever since he and Dana have been having an intense, informative debate about school food reform — the costs, what's possible, the validity of Oliver's accomplishments, the role an outsider like J.O. can or can not play, and more — that I think you'll really want to read.

She obviously thinks she know enough science to write a book promoting the safety of homebirth, run a website promoting the safety of homebirth, write articles in magazines and on websites like The Daily Beast promoting the safety of homebirth, but she doesn't think you know enough to debate the scientific evidence about the safety of homebirth?

Though it does seem like the immigration debate has totally taken over politics in recent months, I think both of these assumptions are rather bold.

I think she did suggest these differences: - appeal to bottom vs appeal to middle - attack equality from gvt vs do it from opposition That sounds to me like the «can we talk about inequality or not» debate around 1999 - 2001, not the debate about how to tackle inequality that we want,

I'd like to thank you all for coming, and thank IPPR for hosting us, and also for all the excellent work they do to inform and stimulate thinking and debate on the centre left.

I think that if you permit me I will like to come tomorrow by way of motion, so it can be debated on the Floor of the Senate.»

We're going to share this debate with people around New York and I hope that other county committees have events like this to help them come to a conclusion as to who would be our best nominee think we're all in the same boat, we want to defeat Andrew Cuomo in November.»

Bloomberg needs nine of them onboard in order to win the vote that's now scheduled for Thursday at 1:30 p.m. And if the City Council thought they were under pressure during last spring's debate over congestion pricing, they're about to learn what serious arm - twisting feels like.

MPs know what the grassroots are thinking about issues like last week's EU debate and on the other side of the coin we can keep track of how they are voting.