Sentences with phrase «when rational people»

2a — vanish when rational people start asking what the heck you're talking about.

Visit prominent «warmist» websites (e.g., Real Climate) and make highly provocative semi-incoherent drive - by comments (making sure not to respond when rational people tell you why your rambling comments are misleading non-sense, but building up your «cred» with deniers by taking on «the keepers of the orthodoxy» — e.g., Gavin).

Bubble is formed when rational people performing irrational stunts.

If you cling to the irrational belief that it's the literal word of a diety, and you read it and actually decide you want to follow it, be self - aware enough to understand when rational people question your morality and intelligence.

Bubble is formed when rational people performing irrational stunts.

@BoldGeorge — So a woman hit's a child and uses the «My hands are so weak I can barely hold a bible» defense when any rational person would know gripping strength in your hands has nothing to do with your ability to swing them at a child.

People are prone to imitate past success, even when a rational person would conclude that it doesn't make any sense to borrow money and buy an asset at a high price.

Not exact matches

But when you claim that you've «beaten» your main competitor, Lyft, and say that an additional service will be more expensive and you hear that people don't trust you anymore because things keep changing and they can't make rational plans, getting angry and blaming them isn't the solution.

Economics assumes people are rational, when in reality they are far from rational, especially when it comes to managing money.

Behavioral finance is a fairly new term and area of research that surfaced when researchers realized that investors, people who make otherwise rational decisions throughout much of their life, do not make rational decisions when it comes to money.

Anyone like Kahneman who can provide some insight into why people are not rational and when that is most likely to happen, is a valuable resource for anyone in business.

When it comes to investing, people may not be as rational as they think.

People don't always make rational decisions when it comes to money.

That is how us rational people feel when the candidates fight over who loves god more.

To tell someone that they deserve to go where the worst people in the world go when they die is still insulting, even if you're rational enough to know such a place is a fairy tale.

Or perhaps I simply realize that many of the so called rational atheists who post on CNN are dedicated to reason only as long as it supports their positions and when it doesn't immediately switch to ad hominem attacks to try to get people to ignore the legitimate point that was made.

are people so simple they crave the misguided beliefs of others to feel better about themselves or are we triing to understand the lunacy of our citizens to believe something as pathic as a 3000 year old IDEA in order to act properly when voting in those who will run this country for the next 4 years a.k.a. voting in one who using rational thinking and logic to make choices!

People that strongly believe, specifically, that there is no God, are fooling themselves when they say they are only being rational, and not reaching a conclusion based on faith.

What you say does nothing to invalidate my point, which is that when people believe in the supernatural they'll attribute phenomenon in the real world to with even though they have no rational reason to do so.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

Typical of these right - wingers; they make these outlandish, incendiary statements, designed to rev up their base, then quietly apologize when they are called out by rational people.

So many people follow the ego (the mental rational mind) when they need to seek the quiet of the id (the soul or spirit).

Isn't it funny that when God tells a person to do something rational, everyone considers it the truth and the person completely sane, but when God tells a person to do something irrational then the person has mental health issues.

When a philosopher defines his central concept only in terms of itself (rational propositions are those that appeal to rational people or that can be supported on rational grounds) it is a sure sign of confusion.

Why do rational people believe the words of a book when there is no evidence?

The most baffling thing is how religious people could be completely rational about every other thing in their everyday lives; and then take leave of their faculties when it comes to these silly stories.

Boethius is not wrong when he says that the human person is an individual substance with a rational nature.

I consider it mixed up when the religious people have the power and the rational thinking are thought of as the crazies

Ben, perhaps what you are really getting at is that when people try to bring their religious «beliefs» into what ought to be a rational political discussion, either their religious «beliefs», or the rational character of the political discussion, or, unhappily, both, end up on the losing end.

There are some problems when people believe things without facts or rational thinking... I guess really dumb people are the problem.

We can also see what the pessimists mean when they argue that technological reason in its quest for rational efficiency tends to reduce people to a cog in the social machine.

When scientists frame human beings as neural machines, recall the hyper - rational rulers of Laputa in Gulliver's Travels, whose instruments of measurement fail utterly to capture the whole person and turn the rationalists themselves into twisted souls.

@Sigh: attempting to make rational arguments gets tedious when it amounts to beating your head against a brick wall — it tends to make people irritated and impolite.

typically, when people make outlandish claims, others of undoubtedly more rational thinking, prefer to see said claims substantiated with some evidence.

When Justice Kennedy asserts that there is no rational basis for the amendment, and that the «inevitable inference» is that the action is «born of animosity toward the class of persons affected,» he is saying, in judicial terms of art, that the amendment was adopted «because of» and not merely «in spite of» its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.

i remember saying as much way back when we were stil top and playing well, a certain person on here, by the name of THE ANALYZER took my head off and said I should take my «negativity» elsewhere, until that day I never knew been rational, frank and realistic equates to been «negative»....

The debate has never truly been had on the MMA forums because when it comes to the most divisive issues such as racism, politics or whatever they may be, people can not for some reason be rational and objective.

When I interviewed Eric Anderson, an American sociologist at England's University of Winchester, a few years ago, when his provocative book, The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating, was published, I was disturbed by his claim that cheating is a rational choice for people constrained by the social dictate of monogWhen I interviewed Eric Anderson, an American sociologist at England's University of Winchester, a few years ago, when his provocative book, The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating, was published, I was disturbed by his claim that cheating is a rational choice for people constrained by the social dictate of monogwhen his provocative book, The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating, was published, I was disturbed by his claim that cheating is a rational choice for people constrained by the social dictate of monogamy.

Most people, when faced with rational and education will make the choice that is best for humanity.

Readers / viewers tend to side with people who share their identity, even when the facts disagree; that's why throwing data and rational arguments at people doesn't change attitudes.

«The passion and rational that I have for all the years of being a neurosurgeon, of trying to help people - listening and helping is the same thing I'm gonna do when I get into Congress,» Maxwell said in an interview with 13WHAM News Monday.

«I think it is very, very dangerous when people who call themselves community leaders make some assumption that somehow that there's a rational connection between these two things.»

People don't always make rational, intelligent choices, and they don't always have the critical thinking abilities to recognize those choices, or manipulation of their emotions when it happens.

There has in fact been a persistent puzzle among economists, especially the variety that believe that all human behavior is rational, concerning why it is that people vote in such large numbers when their vote almost never make a difference, not only at the Presidential level, but even at the level of local elections.

Micah, I see that others have answered your question, but I just want to say that DL's don't have a lot of power, so even if she did nothing, I'd be fine with that, because she is such a smart person and a rational, sane leader when so many of them are wackos.

Violence between people often comes about when they fight over limited resources, but sometimes there is no such «rational» explanation.

Work led by Richard Thaler has demonstrated that, when people are asked to commit to saving money in the distant future (as opposed to right now), they end up making much more economically rational decisions.

Thayer set out to understand why people aren't always rational when making economic decisions and to design a model in which market outcomes consider human fallibility and cognitive biases.

He had always believed that when provided with evidence, people will make rational, informed decisions.

One of my fears is that when this starts to happen, when the hundreds of thousands or millions of people following these diets develop bad effects, such as colon cancer, and other metabolic distortions, and diverticular disease, conventional thinkers will say: «see we told you all those fad diets don't work and they're gonna be dangerous» they're going to label more rational approaches, like our approach, the Undoctored or the Wheat Belly approach as just a fad, when it's not.