Issue8 求修改阿!!!!!!我觉得我能拿4
题目: "政治家应该对公众隐瞒信息.这对于大众通常是必要的,甚至是有益的." Issue8 自己的提纲政治家对于某些会造成严重后果的留言负有隐瞒的责任,但是他忽略了人民群众内部自己净化谣言的能力. 而且, 这给了政治家很大的权力去xxx..
第一段: 作者的逻辑在于 有一些信息是一些别有用心的人散布的,其目的可能是险恶的. 我同意 但是, 作者过于宽泛的定义了信息的内容, 这给了政治家很大的权利.
第二段: 很tempting的同意, 作者对于消息的封闭有三点原因: 1. 人民群众是非理性的,通常把信息变成谣言. 对于一个信息传播不畅的国家或地区, 的传播是几何级的. 政治家如果不在源头就控制住这些危险的信息, 就有控制不住局面的后果. 2. 政治家是代表人民利益的群体, 一个合格的政治家处于对群体的考虑有牺牲一部分xx的义务. 3. 你可能会argue消息封锁是违反xxx 的, 但是政治家的责任很大, 它需要从re的角度处理很紧急得问题, 而这时候没有专断力的政治家往往会带来灾难.
第三段: 但是，有两点 xx反对。 1。人民的净化能力、、而且往往会越帮越乱
第四段：2。政治家太多权限是很危险的 很多政治家的本质是xx （可以反过来）
最终xxxx
The speaker asserts that It is often necessary or even desirable to withhold information from the public. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that in many cases the public are generally irrational as a whole, as is raised by XX, and this provides justifiability to the conceal of information. However, the speaker overlooks the inherent nature of the politicians in that they have a tendency of benefiting themselves in ignorance of the public's interest when effective constraint on them is absent. He also imply that the public lack the ability to purificate some ill-conceived rumors that takes advantage of the public's irrationality.
The implicit rationale behind the speaker's statement seems to be that the public, when considered as whole, intrinsically irrational and due to the distribution of information in a society where the population is dense enough to allow unproven rumers flirts geometrically. It is true as can be exemplified in Rwanda where a massacre took place, when the politician at that time failed to conceal the information that may upscale the conflicts already existeds between the two major tribes, which eventually led to a slaughter that claimed millions of lives. In this case, the unknowledged people in fact facilitates the distribution of rumors that born out of some informations and the disastrous outgrowth could have been evaded if the politicians had played a smarter role. Yet, the definition of the information is too broad that undermines the effectivess of the argument of the speaker, and this, if accepted by the public, may endow the politicians too much discretionary power that they in most cases do not deserve.
It will also be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis of another two considerations. One of them involves with the natural character of politicians that they are elected (in manycases now) to represented general interest of the people to whom they are relegated, and one of the qualities to assess a politician is whether he can balance gain and loss within a limit and get to a choice that can maximize the benefit of the crowd. In here, a politician has a right to sacrifice a temporary free flow of certain information for some long-term interest. The other of them lies where politicians are in face of emergencies, such as war or possibe large-ranged attack, where there isn't so much time for democracy to decide whether the public should be well informed, and where politicians have the right to take the place of tedious and controversial debates.
On the other hand are two compelling arguments that urge us to look into the speaker's assertions and provide his words with some limitiations. The first limitation would be his overlook of the public's ability to digest information and be ration in themselves with the ascendent of speed of information flow and knowledge. For example, the micro-blog (twitter in China) provides netizens with the exposure to different information sources that the governmental effort of conceal of some negative informations ended up in vain.
The other limitation will be that unlimited empowering for politicians to withhold information will give rise to the discretionary power of politicians and given the fact that politicians are human beings with a boundness of natural propensity of benefiting themselves, they may, if not fettered with commesurate constraint of the wielding of power, the withhold of information will create some despotic rulers like Hitler that can easily foment public's emotion like hatred to achieve his own goal.
In the final analysis, though in some cases the politicians have the responsibility to withhold information from public they don't naturally possess this prerogative power and it would be dangerous and presumptious to regard the public as a stack of sheep and treat them like ignorant and sheerly irrational.
翻译的不错... 麻烦大家 修改阿啊啊阿啊啊阿啊啊阿啊
页:
[1]