Issue224 政治审查 写得郁闷!看完了有点开心! 必回!

fishtutuUID: 199884

Issue224  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！

------题目------
Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
------正文------
Justice, an eternal topic of every age that even today is still a disputed issue. Is our law system just? Whether government could represent the multitudes' benefit? All these questions call for a profound suspicion which is about the fairness of the censorship.

Historically, censorship is a form that government design to rule the masses, therefore it serve as a tool of constraining citizens' behavior. First, in feudal system, the emperor's order could be above the law, and censorship is said to make people keeping loyal to emperor. Hence, people could not attain real just in this case, because censorship is work for the emperor's benefit rather than common people. Secondly, governments always fear various ideologies which often cause tremendous reaction among common people and may harm the authority of government. Governments always use the so-called censorship to forbidden different ideas. People who have ideas which contrary with the contemporary main stream idea often be punished. Such examples could be enumerated from medieval to nowadays. Bruno who strikes to protect Copernicus's opinion that earth revolve around the sun be sentenced to death, Galileo who also opposite the Geo-centrism share the similar fate as Bruno, although Galileo just be punished to prison. From the above, we can see that may unjustified censorship have happened frequently in the past thousand years.

On the other hand, Censorship could never be justified in terms of individual, because each individual has their unique values. It true that society share some sorts of common values. However, this principle may lose its effect when apply to individual. Basically, every one has his/her judgment about just. Censorship may seem just for most people, but when it comes to every individual it is likely that one people's just may become another people's unjust. There are many instances. First, take abortive for example, some people may think abortive is illegal while others may advocate that they have the right to decide whether to keep the children or not. The second example is euthanasia which also a disputed topic at present. In many countries euthanasia is illegal while some countries legitimate it as legal behavior. No matter what censorship it is, it is hard to make a justified decision in such case, because every individual has different view.

Obviously, only when censorship held on the hand of multitudes can it be relatively just. There is not absolute just because of the diverse benefit among different people. However, society needs regulation that could consider most people's benefit. What such regulation need to do is to balance different benefit among group or individual instead of emphasize on minority's need. For example, the tax system which is design to eliminate inequality in our society may be unjust in some people's opinion because different salaries have different tax rate. Nevertheless, the tax system covers most people need and thus is able to benefit society as a whole although it may harm some people's benefit and be seems as unjust in those people’s eyes.

In sum, I do agree with the author’s claim that censorship is rarely just because government could use censorship to maintain its rule and also because it is unable to satisfy each individual's benefit. However, we still need censorship which is mastered by masses in order to build a harmonious society.

[ Last edited by fishtutu on 2005-7-11 at 22:04 ]

abigredUID: 154473

Justice, an eternal topic of every age that even today is still a disputed issue. Is our law system just? Whether government could represent the multitudes' benefit intterest似乎更恰当? All these questions call for a profound suspicion which is about the fairness of the censorship.

Historically, censorship is a form(这个词不大恰当,way?怎样) that government designs to rule the masses, therefore it serve as a tool of constraining citizens' behaviors. First, in feudal system, the emperor's order could be above the law, and censorship is said to make people keeping loyal to emperor. Hence, people could not attain real just in this case, because censorship is work for the emperor's benefit rather than common people. Secondly, governments always fear various ideologies which often cause tremendous reaction among common people and may harm the authority of government. Governments always use the so-called censorship to forbidden different ideas. People who have ideas which contrary with  contradict the contemporary main stream idea often be punished. Such examples could be enumerated from medieval to nowadays. Bruno who strikes to protect Copernicus's opinion that earth revolve around the sun be(was) sentenced to death,; Galileo who also opposite the Geo-centrism share the similar fate as Bruno, although Galileo just be punished to prison. From the above, we can see that may(??) unjustified censorship have happened frequently in the past thousand years.

On the other hand, Censorship could never be justified in terms of individual, because each individual has their his or her unique values. It true that society share some sorts of common values. However, this principle may lose its effect when apply to individual. Basically, every one has his/her judgment about just justice. Censorship may seem just for most people, but when it comes to every individual it is likely that one people's just may become another people's unjust. There are many instances. First, take abortive abortion for example, some people may think abortive is illegal while others may advocate that they have the right to decide whether to keep the children or not. The second example is euthanasia which also a disputed topic at present. In many countries euthanasia is illegal while some countries legitimate it as legal behavior. No matter what censorship it is, it is hard to make a justified decision in such cases, because every individual has different view.

Obviously, only when censorship held on the hand of multitudes can it be relatively去掉 just. There is not absolute justice because of the diverse benefit(interest) among different people. However, society needs regulation that could consider most people's benefit. What such regulation need to do is to balance different benefit among group or individual instead of emphasize on minority's need. For example, the tax system which is design to eliminate inequality in our society may be unjust in some people's opinion because different salaries have different tax rate. Nevertheless, the tax system covers most people need and thus is able to benefit society as a whole although it may harm some people's benefit and be seems as unjust in those people’s eyes.

In sum, I do agree with the author’s claim that censorship is rarely just because government could use censorship to maintain its rule and also because it is unable to satisfy each individual's benefit. However, we still need censorship which is mastered by masses in order to build a harmonious society.


实在是没能力看逻辑方面是否存在问题，因为还没有看过政治方面的topics,总体感觉很不错的
词性方面注意一下

fishtutuUID: 199884

Justice, an eternal topic of every age that even today is still a disputed issue. Is our law system just? Whether government could represent the multitudes' interest All these questions call for a profound suspicion which is about the fairness of the censorship.

Historically, censorship is a way that government designs to rule the masses, therefore it serve as a tool of constraining citizens' behaviors. First, in feudal system, the emperor's order could be above the law, and censorship is said to make people keeping loyal to emperor. Hence, people could not attain real just in this case, because censorship is work for the emperor's benefit rather than common people. Secondly, governments always fear various ideologies which often cause tremendous reaction among common people and may harm the authority of government. Governments always use the so-called censorship to forbidden different ideas. People who have ideas which contradict with  the contemporary main stream idea often be punished. Such examples could be enumerated from medieval to nowadays. Bruno who strikes to protect Copernicus's opinion that earth revolve around the sun was sentenced to death,; Galileo who also opposite the Geo-centrism share the similar fate as Bruno, although Galileo just be punished to prison. From the above, we can see that many unjustified censorship have happened frequently in the past thousand years.

On the other hand, Censorship could never be justified in terms of individual, because each individual has his or her unique values. It true that society share some sorts of common values. However, this principle may lose its effect when apply to individual. Basically, every one has his/her judgment about justice. Censorship may seem just for most people, but when it comes to every individual it is likely that one people's just may become another people's unjust. There are many instances. First, take abortion for example, some people may think abortive is illegal while others may advocate that they have the right to decide whether to keep the children or not. The second example is euthanasia which also a disputed topic at present. In many countries euthanasia is illegal while some countries legitimate it as legal behavior. No matter what censorship it is, it is hard to make a justified decision in such cases, because every individual has different view.

Obviously, only when censorship held on the hand of multitudes can it be just. There is not absolute justice because of the diverse interest among different people. However, society needs regulation that could consider most people's benefit. What such regulation need to do is to balance different benefit among group or individual instead of emphasize on minority's need. For example, the tax system which is design to eliminate inequality in our society may be unjust in some people's opinion because different salaries have different tax rate. Nevertheless, the tax system covers most people need and thus is able to benefit society as a whole although it may harm some people's benefit and be seems as unjust in those people’s eyes.

In sum, I do agree with the author’s claim that censorship is rarely just because government could use censorship to maintain its rule and also because it is unable to satisfy each individual's benefit. However, we still need censorship which is mastered by masses in order to build a harmonious society.

谢谢静仪!!
已修改!大家继续咂:)

vickyqiuUID: 2114845

Issue224  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！

------题目------
Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
------正文------
Justice, an eternal topic of every age that even today is still a disputed issue. Is our law system just? Whether government could represent the multitudes' benefit? All these questions call for a profound suspicion which is about the fairness of the censorship.

Historically, censorship is a form that government design to rule the masses, therefore it serve as a tool of constraining [regulating管制] citizens' behavior. First, in feudal system, the emperor's order could be above the law, and censorship is said to make people keeping loyal to emperor. Hence, people could not attain real just in this case, because censorship is work for the emperor's benefit rather than common people [加上's welfare] . Secondly, governments always fear various ideologies which often cause tremendous reaction among common people and may harm the authority of government. Governments always use the so-called censorship to forbidden different ideas. People who have ideas which contrary with [改为to] the contemporary main stream idea often be punished. Such examples could be enumerated [改为enumerable] from medieval [加era] to nowadays. Bruno who strikes to protect Copernicus's opinion that earth revolve around the sun be sentenced to death, Galileo who also opposite the Geo-centrism share the similar fate as Bruno, although Galileo just be punished to prison. [例子不错嘛，是否用过去时呢] From the above, we can see that may unjustified censorship have happened frequently in the past thousand years. [读不通，是拼写错了吗may->many]

On the other hand, Censorship could never be justified in terms of individual, because each individual has their unique values. It [is] true that society share some sorts of common values. However, this principle may lose its effect when apply to individual. Basically, every one has his/her judgment about just [改成justice] . Censorship may seem just for most people, but when it comes to every individual it is likely that one people's just [改成justice] may become another people's unjust. There are many instances. First, take abortive [改成abortion] for example, some people may think abortive is illegal while others may advocate that they have the right to decide whether to keep the children or not. The second example is euthanasia which also a disputed topic at present. In many countries euthanasia is illegal while some countries legitimate it as legal behavior. No matter what censorship it is, it is hard to make a justified decision in such case, because every individual has different view.

Obviously, only when censorship held on the hand of multitudes can it be relatively just. There is not absolute just because of the diverse benefit among different people. However, society needs regulation that could consider most people's benefit. What such regulation need to do is to balance different benefit among group or individual instead of emphasize on minority's need. For example, the tax system which is design to eliminate inequality [改为income gap 是否具体一点] in our society may be unjust in some people's opinion because different salaries have different tax rate. Nevertheless, the tax system covers [改为substentially aims to cover] most people need and thus is able to benefit society as a whole although it may harm some people's benefit and be seems as unjust in those people’s eyes.

In sum, I do agree with the author’s claim that censorship is rarely just because government could use censorship to maintain its rule and also because it is unable to satisfy each individual's benefit. However, we still need censorship which is mastered by masses in order to build a harmonious society.

[文章写得不错嘛，例子满多的，就是语法错误很多，要留时间仔细检查，注意单复数的使用，还可以用一些副词来润色哦。这篇文章我想半天没理解censorship，看了你的启发很大哦。还有一个不重要的问题，你好像对税收的作用理解有点问题。呵呵，加油哦]

vickyqiuUID: 2114845

abigred是静仪 ruc students?
那么巧？

fishtutuUID: 199884

呵呵!是呀!
谢谢啊,今天又学到不少东西:)

runningpiggyUID: 194977

帮小哀的。。占座。。

runningpiggyUID: 194977

Justice, an eternal topic of every age that even today is still a disputed issue. Is our law system just? Whether government could represent the multitudes' interest[少了标点....而且....whether带的不是问句....] All these questions call for a profound suspicion which is about the fairness of the censorship.[哥们.....上来就要说自己的观点阿.....这段子里除了两句废话啥都没有.....]

Historically, censorship is a way that government designs to rule the masses, therefore it serve[主谓要一致] as a tool of constraining citizens' behaviors. First, in feudal system,[feuadlism吧.....] the emperor's order could be above[be above太烂了....overturn楼主觉得怎样.....] the law, and censorship is said to make people keeping[keep] loyal to[the] emperor. Hence, people could not attain real just[名词] in this case, because censorship is work for the emperor's benefit rather than common people.[楼主自己看看....语法问题] Secondly, governments always fear various ideologies which often cause tremendous reaction among common people and may harm the authority of government. Governments always use the so-called censorship to forbidden[晕阿.....怎么这么多语病....] different ideas. People who have ideas which contradict with  the contemporary main stream idea often be punished. Such examples could be enumerated from medieval to nowadays. Bruno who strikes to protect Copernicus's opinion that earth revolve around the sun was sentenced to death,; Galileo who also opposite the Geo-centrism share the similar fate as Bruno, although Galileo just be punished to prison. From the above, we can see that many unjustified censorship have happened frequently in the past thousand years.[整段来说.....语法问题一箩筐.....楼主你好好反省一下....几乎每一句都有问题的.....我懒得每句去挑了.....逻辑上.....后面的论证有点过了.....没能紧扣开始的论点.....]

On the other hand, Censorship could never be justified in terms of individual, because each individual has his or her unique values. It true that society share some sorts of common values. However, this principle may lose its effect when apply to individual. Basically, every one has his/her judgment about justice. Censorship may seem just for most people, but when it comes to every individual it is likely that one people's just may become another people's unjust. There are many instances. First, take abortion for example, some people may think abortive is illegal while others may advocate that they have the right to decide whether to keep the children or not. The second example is euthanasia which also a disputed topic at present. In many countries euthanasia is illegal while some countries legitimate it as legal behavior. No matter what censorship it is, it is hard to make a justified decision in such cases, because every individual has different view.[语法我不挑了.....整段的论述都是在说individual是怎样具有自己的价值观的.....但问题是要推出你的结论还得证明具有自己的价值观就会搞得censorship不just.....这个才是重点所在.....不要本末倒置了.....]

Obviously, only when censorship held on the hand of multitudes can it be just.[倒装很好....可是能不能清除掉你的语法问题啊.....] There is not absolute justice because of the diverse interest among different people. However, society needs regulation that could consider most people's benefit. What such regulation need to do is to balance different benefit among group or individual instead of emphasize on minority's need. For example, the tax system which is design to eliminate inequality in our society may be unjust in some people's opinion because different salaries have different tax rate. Nevertheless, the tax system covers most people need and thus is able to benefit society as a whole although it may harm some people's benefit and be seems as unjust in those people’s eyes.[呃....你的TS句应该修改一下.....跟后面说得东西有点距离....还有就是这例子后面缺乏足够的论证.....而且段末最好弄个句子来总结一下.....]

In sum, I do agree with the author’s claim that censorship is rarely just because government could use censorship to maintain its rule and also because it is unable to satisfy each individual's benefit. However, we still need censorship which is mastered by masses in order to build a harmonious society.[全篇最好的一段.....]


[总的来说.....语法问题不解决的话楼主你别想拿超过4分.....如果可以的话.....好好复习一下中学的语法....文章的结构好好总结一下.....逻辑关系多思考一下......再强调一下.....如果语法还是这么烂....没几个人愿意给你改作文的.....]

[ Last edited by runningpiggy on 2005-7-13 at 21:44 ]

vickyqiuUID: 2114845

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=%2Bvickyqiu

fishtutuUID: 199884

汗啊!!runningpiggy 一锤砸醒了我呀!!痛快!!!

看来真得拿中学的语法书好好看看了!!!