[问题求助] 雷同问题求助和例子问题质疑-希望版主和有经验的同学能帮帮 [复制链接]

maming008
UID: 2792608

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 157
注册时间: 2010-6-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-7-11 14:18:45 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 maming008 于 2010-7-11 14:23 编辑

两个问题，不胜感激：

1. 之前写提纲的时候来源比较单一，主要是北美范文的框架提炼，北美上没有的我就是在网上参考综合的。但是写的时候发现有很高的雷同的倾向，就好像是在默写一样，虽然语言上没法赶上。我会把文章帖一下作对比，希望经验丰富的前辈看一些是不是能这么写（这种程度是否雷同）？

2. 北美上用的那个罗斯福的例子应该是不对的，虽然逻辑推理上上可以自圆其说。这个例子我在很多提纲里面都用到了，罗斯福的病是在中年，年幼的时候虽然有点孤僻但是身心都还是很健康的（罗斯福转），但是北美却说both stunted by life-threatening physical infirmities during his childhood,还有他那个万用的“弦理论”，评价一会正一会负，感觉那个stewart 是不是为了自圆其说在好多例子里面忽悠啊，这样用例子有什么负面影响么？

By Stewart:

I find the speaker's dual claim to be specious on both counts. The claim that society's destiny hinges on how children are socialized, while appealing in some respects, is an over-statement at best. And the claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can better society is poorly supported by empirical evidence.

Consider first the speaker's assertion that society's destiny depends on how children are socialized. I concede that unless a child is allowed sufficient opportunities for healthy interaction with peers, that child is likely to grow into an ineffectual, perhaps even an anti-social, adult. To witness healthy socialization in action, one need look no further than the school playground, where children learn to negotiate, cooperate, and assert themselves in a respectful manner, and where they learn about the harmful results of bullying and other anti-social behavior. These lessons help children grow up to be good citizens and effective leaders, as well as tolerant and respectful members of society.

However, socialization is only one factor influencing the extent to which an individual will ultimately contribute to a better society. And in my observation it is not the most important one. Consider certain prominent leaders who have contributed profoundly to a better society. Mahatma Gandhi's contributions sprang primarily from the courage of his inner convictions, in spite of his proper socialization among genteel Indian society and, as a law student, among British society. Martin Luther King's contribution was primarily the result of his strong religious upbringing, which had more to do with parental influence than with socialization. An even more remarkable modern example was Theodore Roosevelt, whose social and physical development were both stunted by life-threatening physical infirmities during his childhood. In spite of his isolation, odd manner and aloofness throughout his early life, Roosevelt ascended to a social-activist presidency by means of his will to overcome physical infirmities, his voracious appetite for knowledge, and his raw intellect.

Consider next the speaker's claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can better society. If we define a "better" society as one characterized by greater tolerance of differing viewpoints and people who are different from ourselves, greater respect for individual rights, and greater cooperation across cultural and national boundaries, then the children of the most recent half-century are creating a better society. The most recent quarter-century has seen an increasing sensitivity in our society toward ensuring public health by policing the food and drug industries and by protecting our natural environment. We're becoming more sensitive to, and respectful of, the rights of women, various ethnic and racial groups, homosexuals, and mentally- and physically-challenged individuals. The re-emergence of political third parties with decidedly libertarian ideals demonstrates an increasing concern for individual freedoms. And there is ample evidence of increasing international cooperation. The former Soviet Union and the U.S. have worked collaboratively in space research and exploration since the 1970s; peace-keeping missions are now largely multi-national efforts; and nations are now tackling public health problems collaboratively through joint research programs. In short, the speaker's second claim flies in the face of the empirical evidence, as I see it.

In sum, when it comes to whether a child grows up to contribute to a better society, the key determinant is not socialization but rather some other factor--such as a seminal childhood event, parental influence, raw intelligence, or personal conviction. And, while reasonable people with differing political and social viewpoints might disagree about what makes for a "better" society, in my observation our society is steadily evolving into a more civilized, respectful, and tolerant one. In the final analysis, then, I fundamentally disagree with both aspects of the speaker's dual claim.

By maming008:

In this article the writer asserts that how well the children are socialized really matters for the determination of society’ destiny, and we have not learned to raise them to better our society, while I want to maintain that although I can conceded that the children's socialization serves as a role that can not be replaced during children's growth either from a individual aspect or from a social respect, there do exist alternative factors other than the socialization of children on the destiny of the society determination, meanwhile the assertion that the children have not been raised well is also wrong-headed based on the formal experience.

Admittedly I concede that socialization really matters either from an individual aspect or from a social respect during the children’s growing, we need to take a glance no farther than the play ground on which child learns how to be socialized at an early age. During their participations in the games and competitions on the playground, from a personal and individual aspect the child acquires the method to negotiate with the groups and express their special views to come into a agreement, also cultivate their traits such as a wide tolerance of the views that are totally different
from theirs, so a comprehensive personality is gradually founded without too much notice, while moreover to a broad society scale ,it is just a respectful traits that the modern humans must learn and acquire, which contributes to the social stability and a more harmonious society ultimately.

But even as we notice that lacking the socialization compared with the children who are well acquired the method noted above, may result a pathetic consequence such as the character to be solo and aloof, or even possibly lead to a anti-society inclination, yet it should be noted as well that the destiny of the society can be determined by the alternative factors that may be even more proper than the socialization, when it comes to this view, a myriad of leaders and precursors rapidly flash in my mind, the Martin Luther King and mahatma Gandhi are all born as common people in the society, and getting the conventional socialization such as Gandhi’ majors in laws in which society marks a higher status quo in the upper class in the Europe, while King is also an vigorous participants in the university’s education, but as for King, it is rather the strong religious belief cultivated much more by their parents than the prevailing views in the process of socialization that give him such a profound and siganificant contribution to the democratic footnotes in the historical status, while so it is with Gandhi, it is more the splendid self-conviction stemmed from the eternal love for worldwide humanity than the education of the upper class during their societal interaction that confers him the courage and ability to incite a revolution in India. They are all remarkable exceptions to the writer’s assertion about those who better the society based on more critical traits rather than a well-socialized life experience.

Meanwhile we can also see that even one without a well socialization during his early life, it also can bring about personal success and a footnotes contribution to society ultimately, on the foundation of other factors than the socialization. A more remarkable illustration can be picked up is the experience of the President Roosevelt who suffered from a native physical defect hindering his early life’s normal activity with his peers both in physical aspects as well as the mental aspects, which leads to his bizarre and even odd manners which separate this child from his peers , needless to say the normal socialization , but it is just his strong will, a amazing personal belief and a various appetite for knowledge that eventually generates his widely recognize and acceptance along with the sapient NEW DEAL as a contribution to the society winning his world-wide famous, so maybe the socialization really matters, it has far less reach the extent to determine the destiny of the world as the illustration demonstrates.

Consider the other count of the speaker’assertion, if we defines a better society as the character such as a wide and better tolerance with the various views, a broader cooperation with each others regardless of the confinement of the boundaries and nations, a more respectful view giving to the personal choice and innovation, a highly honor conferred to the original ideas that contributes and betters the society more, I want to say that the peers have already been well raised for that the society of modern US is heading for these directions in an unparalleled process ,which can be buttressed by the evidence of the legislated and moral tolerance of the homosexual activities, a prevailing view to reconcile different views rather than the former suppress, even in some states patients have been entitled the right to select the assisted suicide such as euthanasia which is ever treated as a profane to the life gifted by the God, in view of these noted evidence, the assertion by the speaker may be a conclusion which is based on the out-dated observations and fails to keep abreast with the current updating society.

In sum, although conceding the critical role the socialization plays in the growth of the children,
it has reached far less than the ability and extent to determine the destiny of the world, and the alternative factors of determination can be also examined as well. On the other hand, the assertion that children have not been raised well is also wrong-headed based on the formal experience which is out-dated against the updating view.