- 日志
- 好友
- 卖家信用
 - 买家信用
- 注册时间
- 2004-9-26
- 在线时间
- 小时
|
马上注册，结交更多好友，享用更多功能，让你轻松玩转社区。
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看，没有账号？注册账号
x
以下文章是历年的。任何一篇都需要在一个小时之内翻译成日语。有兴趣的不妨做一下。How do American talk about litigiousness? How does this term convey meaning? How are the meaning of litigiousness learned? Who is their audience? A first step toward addressing these questions is in examining the discourse surrounding litigiousness,a discourse widely shared by American academics, practitioners, and laypeople alike. Its features can be summarized in the following way:1. Scale. The adjective “litigious” is generally applied to groups rather than individuals; it is used in reference to a collective phenomenon. Thus, an ordinary usage would be” American are litigious,” not “may neighbor is litigious.” One’s neighbor might be a troublemaker or a bad neighbor, but not, in ordinary American speech, litigious. The referents of this adjective are virtually always the third-person plural. The open-ended, collective referent of the term suggests that its scale is that of American society itself, or the American society fabric. This scale suggests that when people express concern about litigiousness that they are concerned that some defect exists in American culture or social structure.2. value. Litigiousness carries negative connotations.-----------------In traditional societies(be they in the East or the West) the individual could realize his or her human dignity only according to his or her position in society. They very notion of the autonomy of the individual West, lacked not only the practice of human rights but also the very concept. It was the emergence of the modern State and market economy which called for liberal concepts of human rights and respective practices. The emergence of the market economy made individuals autonomous not only vis-a-vis each other as owners, vendors or buyers, but also vis-a-vis society. This means that a degree of autonomy of the individual vis-a-vis the State was also needed. But the State has always had and still has a propensity to encroach upon the autonomy in the form of human rights and freedoms. Therefore, a modern state and human rights, as entitlements of the individual vis-a-vis the State, are mutually conditioned. Today, in practically all societies, modern States have emerged with certain attributes – police, army, secret services, bureaucracy, etc. For the purposes of our analysis, it is not especially important whether some countries have accepted these attributes from Western societies or have developed them on their own. What matters is whether, having introduced institutions which have the tendency, in the absence of proper guarantees in the form of human rights, to suppress not only the individual freedoms but also to subordinate the whole society to the State apparatus , leaders of these States are free to have human rights aside?-------------------------------In 1786 THE Providence Gazette and Country Journal proudly reprinted the following item from a London newspaper:” There are 775300000 people in the world. Of these, arbitrary governments command 741800000 and the free ones (including 10 million Indians) only 33 million. Of these few, 12 million are subjects or descendants of the British Empire-half of the freemen of the world. On the whole, slaves are three and twenty times more numerous than men enjoying, in any tolerable degree, the rights of human nature.The anonymous author of these calculations did not specify what he meant by freedom-he doubtless assumed yet the statement itself contains (in addition to the sexism) at least sex implicit and not altogether consistent comments upon the nature and origins of liberty. The first two are definitions in terms of opposites. Freedom is the opposite of slavery: these two conditions alone are possible, and all people are either slaves or freemen. Again, freedom is the opposite of arbitrary rule: it is life under a government of laws, wherein rulers govern according to known and fixed principles. --------------------------Toxicity, like hazard, is a relative factor inconsideration of adverse effects or response upon animal or plant life. Absolute safety is unattainable. Facetiously, pathologists emphasize that living is indeed a hazardous process. We make decisions and adjustments daily to mitigate, or hopefully eliminate, the hazards in our living or environment. Certain nomenclature is used in defining the type of hazard or toxicity, which is the immediate or short-term adverse effect from exposure to a toxic agent such as a pesticide. Pesticides are chemicals which are toxic and are intended as such to eliminate pests. Beyond the short-term or acute effect evidenced in accidental poisoning to pesticides is the sub-chronic toxic effect which, in experimental animals, would mean three to six months; and for man a matter of months or longer. Finally, there is the more subtle and pernicious effect of a toxic chemical after a long period of exposure, usually referred to as chronic toxicity. Clinically, certain diseases are referred to as chronic since the illness is protracted and the symptoms observable over a span of months and years. The adverse biomedical response from a toxic agent on a chronic basis can be reflected in certain disease processed, one of which is cancer. Our attention is directed to this unwanted, debilitating effect which has been described as a “hundred diseases” because of its complexity, its site of action (target organs), and its variable mechanism under imposed conditions.----------------------
[此贴子已经被sheng于2005-7-31 14:38:37编辑过]
|
|
显IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2004-9-27 19:48:00
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2004-11-8 14:59:00
