Issue234 限时

netbugwangUID: 157454

Issue 234
Most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice, even though they might deny such a preference.

A : restrictions and regulations are more desirable
B: absolute choice is impossible
C: why people deny


Are restrictions and regulations much more preferable than absolute freedom of choice? Do people really prefer the former two without knowing? To the first question, my answer is absolutely yes, and for the second one, I don't agree. Here are my reasons for my particular point of view.

First of all, the reason why restrictions and regulations are more desirable is that they are the basis for any given society to operate without turmoil. As we all know, restrictions and regulations set by the constitution and laws are responsible for installing the fundamental structure for any modern country, such as the United States. The basic objective of these rules is to make sure that people conduct insofar as they don't harm other's legal rights which are also the basis for any civilized society. Without such rules, human society will be like those societies of the animals, in which any animal eats those can be eaten, sometime they even eat their same kind, or their offspring. That's why throughout human history, any civilized culture in record has some kind of regulations or restrictions. Such as the Ten Commandments described in the Bible.  In a word, those regulations and restrictions are the basis for any human society.

Second, the notion of absolute choice seems promising，however, they can not be realized in reality without ruining human society. In practice, if everyone is entitled the power to choose and act whatever he or she want, then nobody's right is under protection. Anything immoral or illegal in our perspective can happen. For example, for thieves, they can just steal by saying that they have the choice to steal and can do so; while for the victims, they could say that they have the choice of not being stolen. However, no rules or regulations will guarantee that. In addition, this absolute of choice can be attacked from a philosophical point of view. Which tells us that there is no absolute thing in reality, thus it is easy to deduce the absolute of choice will not be valid in any human society.

However, in reality, people tend to say that they prefer absolute of choice. Some people blame the society, saying that a democratic government should grant every citizen all choices. In fact, most of those claims and demands only remember to rationalize their own right for the absolute choices , while they tend to demand regulation and restrictions of other people's choices. For example, most of people living in China's big cities prefer to restrict the city residential rights to themselves and their offspring, which they think are their choice thus should be protected and honored; on the contrary, people from the countryside demand that they have the right to live in the big cites as their choice.  Some country use spy airplanes and satellites over other countries' soil who claim that they have the right to know those countries matters and information, while those countries demand that they do have the choice to keep those matters as their own countries' privacies. From the two examples above, we can understand the reason why people always deny their preference for regulations which can limit both themselves and others, thus give everyone their practical relative choices which is better than the impossible absolute choices.


In sum, regulations and restrictions are the basis for any society, thus they should not be replaced by a hypothesis of absolute of choice which is impractical in reality. And people tend to deny the notion that they prefer to have those rules rather than no restrictions at all.

LSDUID: 157855

Are restrictions and regulations much more preferable than absolute freedom of choice? Do people really prefer the former two without knowing? To the first question, my answer is absolutely yes, and for the second one, I don't agree. Here are my reasons for my particular point of view.[开头很明确的表明了观点]

[First of all, the reason why restrictions and regulations are more desirable is that they are the basis for any given society to operate without turmoil. ]As we all know, restrictions and regulations set by the constitution and laws[by 后面应该加人把] are responsible for installing the fundamental structure for any modern country, such as the United States. The basic objective of these rules is to make sure that people conduct insofar as they don't harm other's legal rights which are also the basis for any civilized society. Without such rules, human society will be like those societies of the animals, in which any animal eats those can be eaten, sometime they even eat their same kind, or their offspring. That's why throughout human history, any civilized culture in record has some kind of regulations or restrictions. Such as the Ten Commandments described in the Bible. In a word, those regulations and restrictions are the basis for any human society.[对于regulations and restrictions 的重要性我觉得用人类社会举正面的例子可能会更有说服力些]

[Second, the notion of absolute choice seems promising，however, they can not be realized in reality without ruining human society.] In practice, if everyone is entitled the power to choose and act whatever he or she want, then nobody's right is under protection. Anything immoral or illegal in our perspective can happen. For example, for thieves, they can just steal by saying that they have the choice to steal and can do so; while for the victims, they could say that they have the choice of not being stolen. However, no rules or regulations will guarantee that. In addition, this absolute of choice can be attacked from a philosophical point of view. Which tells us that there is no absolute thing in reality, thus it is easy to deduce the absolute of choice will not be valid in any human society. [看完了感觉和上一段的例子说得一个意思啊]

[However, in reality, people tend to say that they prefer absolute of choice. ]Some people blame the society, saying that a democratic government should grant every citizen all choices. In fact, most of those claims and demands only remember to rationalize their own right for the absolute choices , while they tend to demand regulation and restrictions of other people's choices. For example, most of people living in China's[Chinese] big cities prefer to restrict the city residential rights to themselves and their offspring, which they think are their choice thus should be protected and honored; on the contrary, people from the countryside demand that they have the right to live in the big cites as their choice. Some country use spy airplanes and satellites over other countries' soil who claim that they have the right to know those countries matters and information, while those countries demand that they do have the choice to keep those matters as their own countries' privacies. From the two examples above, we can understand the reason why people always deny their preference for regulations which can limit both themselves and others, thus give everyone their practical relative choices which is better than the impossible absolute choices.


In sum, regulations and restrictions are the basis for any society, thus they should not be replaced by a hypothesis of absolute of choice which is impractical in reality. And people tend to deny the notion that they prefer to have those rules rather than no restrictions at all.

arthritisUID: 180709

写这么长，打击人啊

beilongzhuhaiUID: 175441

Issue 234
Most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice, even though they might deny such a preference.

A : restrictions and regulations are more desirable
B: absolute choice is impossible
C: why people deny


Are restrictions and regulations much more preferable than absolute freedom of choice? Do people really prefer the former two without knowing? To the first question, my answer is absolutely yes, and for the second one, I don't agree. Here are my reasons for my particular point of view.(这是非常好的开头啊，立场明确，观点清晰！)

First of all, the reason why restrictions and regulations are more desirable is that they are the basis for any given society to operate without turmoil. As we all know, restrictions and regulations set by the constitution and laws are responsible for installing the fundamental structure for any modern country, such as the United States. The basic objective of these rules is to make sure that people conduct insofar as they don't harm other's legal rights which are also the basis for any civilized society. Without such rules, human society will be like those societies of the animals, in which any animal eats those can be eaten, sometime they even eat their same kind, or their offspring. That's why throughout human history, any civilized culture in record has some kind of regulations or restrictions. Such as the Ten Commandments described in the Bible. In a word, those regulations and restrictions are the basis for any human society.

Second, the notion of absolute choice seems promising，however, they can not be realized in reality without ruining human society. In practice, if everyone is entitled the power to choose and act whatever he or she want, then nobody's right is under protection. Anything immoral or illegal in our perspective can happen. For example, for thieves, they can just steal by saying that they have the choice to steal and can do so; while for the victims, they could say that they have the choice of not being stolen. However, no rules or regulations will guarantee that. In addition, this absolute of choice can be attacked from a philosophical point of view. Which tells us that there is no absolute thing in reality, thus it is easy to deduce the absolute of choice will not be valid in any human society.

However, in reality, people tend to say that they prefer absolute of choice. Some people blame the society, saying that a democratic government should grant every citizen all choices. In fact, most of those claims and demands only remember to rationalize their own right for the absolute choices , while they tend to demand regulation and restrictions of other people's choices. For example, most of people living in China's big cities prefer to restrict the city residential rights to themselves and their offspring, which they think are their choice thus should be protected and honored; on the contrary, people from the countryside demand that they have the right to live in the big cites as their choice. Some country use spy airplanes and satellites over other countries' soil who claim that they have the right to know those countries matters and information, while those countries demand that they do have the choice to keep those matters as their own countries' privacies. From the two examples above, we can understand the reason why people always deny their preference for regulations which can limit both themselves and others, thus give everyone their practical relative choices which is better than the impossible absolute choices.


In sum, regulations and restrictions are the basis for any society, thus they should not be replaced by a hypothesis of absolute of choice which is impractical in reality. And people tend to deny the notion that they prefer to have those rules rather than no restrictions at all.

理由充分，论述层层深入，明确！佩服佩服！而且是限时的文章，写的很好！
动笔就是进步！欢迎回拍！
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=244066
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=242410
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=242967