A Quote by Mohammad Javad Zarif

I have disagreements with some and more agreements with others. But that doesn't mean I cannot listen to those I disagree with. — © Mohammad Javad Zarif
I have disagreements with some and more agreements with others. But that doesn't mean I cannot listen to those I disagree with.
A delusion that encourages belief where there is no evidence is asking for trouble. Disagreements between incompatible beliefs cannot be settled by reasoned argument because reasoned argument is drummed out of those trained in religion from the cradle. Instead, disagreements are settled by other means which, in extreme cases, inevitably become violent. Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics.
Harmony is a symphony, and symphony is an agreement; but an agreement of disagreements while they disagree there cannot be; you cannot harmonize that which disagrees.
There is no such thing as justice or injustice among those beasts that cannot make agreements not to injure or be injured. This is also true of those tribes that are unable or unwilling to make agreements not to injure or be injured.
Aesthetics is both politics and philosophy, a series of agreements and disagreements between subjective minds.
Of course, there were huge disagreements in the arguments of military intervention, .. There is no point at the moment on focusing on those disagreements.
In a litigation-happy society, clear agreements often prevent small disagreements from becoming big ones.
Abortion raises moral and spiritual questions over which honorable persons can disagree sincerely and profoundly. But those disagreements did not then and do not now relieve us of our duty to apply the Constitution faithfully.
I listen to a lot of criticism. From the Left and the Right and from everywhere. I mean, everybody's a media critic. And sometimes I think it's on point, and other times, I think about it and consider it and then might ultimately disagree with it. But I do listen to it; I really do.
I have disagreements with leadership, I have disagreements with the speaker, but I have those one-on-one.
We need not all agree, but if we disagree, let us not be disagreeable in our disagreements.
Surely the better way is to pursue a generous orthodoxy, seeing disagreements in the context of the greater agreements which bind us together.
ANYONE who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them - instead of answering their arguments.
I think we're all survivors, to be honest. I mean, some of us more than others - some of us have to survive far more horrendous things than others. It's all relative: whatever your experience is.
It's always better to treat those with whom you disagree with compassion - if not for compassion's sake, then because it makes it much more likely that they'll actually be willing to listen to what you have to say.
A lot of us have all sorts of ideas, and we select some rather than others and give expression to those... and some works of art are more successful than others. Some languish in obscurity and are never heard of again, while others form the foundation of a whole school of art.
If we want more trade in the world, we should establish bilateral trade agreements with other democratic countries. That way we can control the decision-making process. The major economic countries of the world will enter into those agreements.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!