Issue212 V6站队 8.2 高频题，限时，好像长句偏多偏乱了

mkb57288UID：2105771

限时完成，改了几处单词错误，480words 但个人感觉长句太多，有点儿罗嗦，不知道有没有把意思说清楚
------题目------
If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable.
------正文------
I agree with the speaker's claim that the worthy ends will justify the controvertible means insofar as the desirable goals can be actually realized in the long run and no other more reasonable means are available.

I concede that to achieve certain desirable goals, certain actions, which are even violation with such goals, are necessary. For example, the war, even that fight for the freedom and equality, might suspend the principles to triumph over opponents first. For the strict regulation often serve to ensure victories, otherwise, the complete freedom, which is against with regulation may deprive any army of its force--that is, always adherence to the principle amounts to postponing such principles forever. Another telling example is in the game of politics. To become an effective leader, one need pander to the electorate first, if not, he or she may show naivety or vulnerability to the opponents and risk losing the campaign for office. In this matter, although the truthfulness are virtues of politicians, the political game calls for somewhat sacrifice of the principle for a moment.

However, such myopic violations against the worthy goals, does not necessarily justify themselves in the long run. If we are always encouraged to get immediate successes despite of the reasonability of the way we take, we actually risk defeating the purpose of original exertion in the long run. Consider the sustainability of human civilization. To get the immediate wealth, we exploit natural resources rampantly. As a result, we face the increasingly obvious pressure from the availability of such resources, which has threatened the prosperity of our civilization in the long run. Let us back to the example of politics again, if politicians are encouraged to pander to the desire of the electorate, we risk devolving the democracy into demagoguery and allowing deception as well as manipulation.

Another reason I disagree the speakers machiavellian assertion is that by allowing "any" means, we risk allowing extreme actions, especially when there are more desirable and justifiable ways in which we can realize the goals as good as in the controvertible means. Consider the end of Pacific war: America, who defeat Japan with the explosion of atomic bomb, actually has more reasonable means that can equally put the war to an end. For the use of atomic bomb not only cause thousands and hundreds of murders in Japan, which is definitely the largest holocaust in World War II, but also set an egregious example in the world, which subject our world to an eruption of an atomic bomb war and nuclear arm race.

In final analysis, under certain circumstances, to achieve the desirable goals, we are driven even encouraged to take controvertible means, which even may go against with the aims. By conniving of such means, however, we risk defeating the goals in the long run and permitting extreme actions, which will never justify the means we take.

[ Last edited by mkb57288 on 2005-8-2 at 23:13 ]

mrealUID：201732

明早来贴吧，困了~~~

mrealUID：201732

Issue212 V6站队 8.2 高频题，限时，好像长句偏多偏乱了

限时完成，改了几处单词错误，480words 但个人感觉长句太多，有点儿罗嗦，不知道有没有把意思说清楚
------题目------
If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable.
------正文------
I agree with the speaker's claim that the worthy ends will justify the controvertible means insofar as the desirable goals can be actually realized in the long run and no other more reasonable means are available.

I concede that to achieve certain desirable goals, certain actions, which are even violation with such goals, are necessary. For example, the war, even that fight for the freedom and equality, might suspend the principles principle是不是要具体定义一下啊 to triumph over opponents first. For the strict regulation often serve to ensure victories, otherwise, the complete freedom, which is against with删 regulation may deprive any army of its force--that is, always adherence to the principle amounts to postponing such principles forever. 总坚持原则就是永远把原则视为次要。能不能解释的再明白些？是不是因为军队需要原则而战争又是完全为了自由（与约束相逆）而起所以……？要是我理解的对那你应该再说明一下吧~Another telling example is in the game of politics. To become an effective leader, one need pander to the electorate first, if not, he or she may show naivety or vulnerability to the opponents and risk losing the campaign for office. In this matter, although the truthfulness are virtues of politicians, the political game calls for somewhat sacrifice of the principle for a moment.for a moment在这里有点奇怪，再考虑一下？
However, such myopic violations against the worthy goals, does not necessarily justify themselves in the long run. If we are always encouraged to get immediate successes despite of the reasonability of the way we take, we actually risk defeating the purpose of original exertion in the long run. Consider the sustainability of human civilization. To get the immediate wealth, we exploit natural resources rampantly. As a result, we face the increasingly obvious pressure from the availability of such resources, which has threatened the prosperity of our civilization in the long run. Let us back to the example of politics again, if politicians are encouraged to pander to the desire of the electorate, we risk devolving the democracy into demagoguery and allowing deception as well as manipulation.

Another reason I disagree the speakers machiavellian assertion is that by allowing "any" means, we risk allowing extreme actions, especially when there are more desirable and justifiable ways in which we can realize the goals as good as in the controvertible means. Consider the end of Pacific war: America, who defeat Japan with the explosion of atomic bomb, actually has more reasonable means that can equally put the war to an end. For the use of atomic bomb not only cause thousands and hundreds of murders in Japan, which is definitely the largest holocaust in World War II, but also set an egregious example in the world, which subject our world to an eruption of an atomic bomb war and nuclear arm race.

In final analysis, under certain circumstances, to achieve the desirable goals, we are driven even encouraged to take controvertible means, which even may go against with the aims. By conniving of such means, however, we risk defeating the goals in the long run and permitting extreme actions, which will never justify the means we take.

mkb57288UID：2105771

看样子都怪我在开始出现principle的地方没有说明白，就是指前面的freedom、equality等等

mrealUID：201732

语言上我是改不出什么来了，不过想取经：高级词汇怎么用进去的啊~~~红宝背的很熟练了吗？
再说说我理解的结构吧：
1：承认达到某些即使违反规则的目标的必要性。
2：但是那些违反规则的行为在长期看来并不一定是正当的。
3：不择手段就是默许了某些极端的行为而带来隐患。
在某些特定情况下达到期望目标可以采取一些有争议的手段，但是可能会带来长期影响和极端行为。
如果我理解的对，也就是说你认为并不是所有的行为都可以算作言之有理，但是似乎你的表态没有那么明确，觉得很含糊的，你看呢？再讨论一下吧~~~

xiaowenzi118UID：202887

212        If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable.
------正文------
I agree with the speaker's claim that the worthy ends will justify the controvertible means insofar as the desirable goals can be actually realized in the long run and no other more reasonable means are available.

I concede that to achieve certain desirable goals, certain actions, which are even violation with such goals, are necessary. For example, the war, even that fight for the freedom and equality, might suspend the principles to triumph over opponents first. For the strict regulation often serve to ensure victories, otherwise, the complete freedom, which is against with regulation may deprive any army of its force--that is, always adherence to the principle amounts to postponing such principles forever. Another telling example is in the game of politics. To become an effective leader, one need pander to the electorate first, if not, he or she may show naivety or vulnerability to the opponents and risk losing the campaign for office. In this matter, although the truthfulness are virtues of politicians, the political game calls for somewhat sacrifice of the principle for a moment. ( 感觉你一上来就把整个题定位到了一些不当的means上了,好像和我的思路不太一样,不过这里有点看不出你第一段论点里所concede的东西)
However, such myopic violations against the worthy goals, does not necessarily justify themselves in the long run. If we are always encouraged to get immediate successes despite of the reasonability of the way we take, we actually risk defeating the purpose of original exertion in the long run. Consider the sustainability of human civilization. To get the immediate wealth, we exploit natural resources rampantly. As a result, we face the increasingly obvious pressure from the availability of such resources, which has threatened the prosperity of our civilization in the long run. Let us back to the example of politics again, if politicians are encouraged to pander to the desire of the electorate, we risk devolving the democracy into demagoguery and allowing deception as well as manipulation.

Another reason I disagree the speakers machiavellian assertion is that by allowing "any" means, we risk allowing extreme actions, especially when there are more desirable and justifiable ways in which we can realize the goals as good as in the controvertible means. Consider the end of Pacific war: America, who defeat Japan with the explosion of atomic bomb, actually has more reasonable means that can equally put the war to an end. For the use of atomic bomb not only cause thousands and hundreds of murders in Japan, which is definitely the largest holocaust in World War II, but also set an egregious example in the world, which subject our world to an eruption of an atomic bomb war and nuclear arm race.

In final analysis, under certain circumstances, to achieve the desirable goals, we are driven even encouraged to take controvertible means, which even may go against with the aims. By conniving of such means, however, we risk defeating the goals in the long run and permitting extreme actions, which will never justify the means we take.
其它没什么大问题了。就B1举的例子觉得有点极端了。