bigcrab

“Everywhere, it seems, there are clear and positive signs that people are becoming more respectful of one another’s differences.”
Some observers argue that nowadays people become increasing respectful for others’ differences everywhere.
In this view, they may point that people have regulated much more laws that prohibit the behaviors of discrimination and guarantee the implements of various people’s rights and in school students are instilled the ideology of equality and can acknowledge the nature of the divergence among human beings so that they would form the positive attitudes to the variance. Indeed, from this perspective, we can detect that people have made efforts to diminish negative weight of divergence among common citizens. However, they ignore some crucial aspects of this topic.

Anti-discriminatory laws in the areas of employment, housing, and education, now protect all significant minority groups racial minorities and women, the physically challenged and, more recently, homosexuals. we should never ignore that many such law itself is unfair for some portion of people. Moreover, signs of disrespect are all around us today. Merely examining the number of Black or women representatives in House or other government agencies, we would readily reach conclusion the law can hardly stand for their essential benefits, or they may sacrifice some other rights in order to gain a kind of right.
Ironically, the admission policy of some undergraduate or graduate colleges pays emphasizes on the afford capacity of international students when committees decide their admission, but seldom consider that of the residents. Such dual standards can be hardly regarded as positive signs of respecting others.
Finally, what appears to be respect for one another’s differences may in fact be an increasing global homogeneity—that is, we are becoming more and more alike.
In sum, on a societal level it is difficult to distinguish between genuine respect for one another’s differences on the one hand and legislated morality and increasing homogeneity on the other. Accordingly, the claim that we are becoming more respectful of one another’s differences is somewhat dubious.

bigcrab

All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. Giving one person central authority and responsibility for a project or task is not an effective way to get work done.
Thesis sentence: it is true that team work is the most familiar functional way that adopted by many groups and organizations. It is also true that every team member should share responsibilities and duties within the team. However, it is hardly true that the absence of central authority that enables everybody to make decisions is an effective way to get work done.
Admittedly
1，所有人共同担负责任确实更有效
   Compared with giving the responsibility for a task to one authoritative person, the sharing of responsibilities and duties among team members is a more effective way to get things done.
The allocated responsibility and duties give workers the feeling of being important and necessary that motivated them to fulfill their work.
The fact that anyone who dose not accomplish his or her assigned work thus affect the whole progress of the project could be easily detected, gives the necessary pressure to workers that guarantee the efficiency thus the completion of the project.
Nevertheless, that is not to say, people in a team should make decisions together.
1，但所有人都参与决策比一人决策效率高的说法不正确
   The claim that letting everyone to make decision rather than giving one person central authority is a more effective way to get things down is unwarranted.
   Everybody makes decisions totally no decisions.
Not everyone has acquired the essential abilities such as thorough analysis and foresighted prediction to make decisions.

bigcrab

Employees should keep their private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from the workplace.”
The statement above is a controversial issue, which cannot be taken lightly. All of us, as human beings need private lives and need to do personal activities. However, when it comes to the office I believe that these things must be kept out of the work place because it not only can put the work we do in jeopardy but also can put the lives of those we love in danger. I will explain my view in the coming paragraphs.

First, the office is a place where ideas are laid on the table, where there should be no limits, where creativity should not have any boundaries, with the exception of a few limitations, legally and morally speaking. These ideas are things that must be nurtured to build upon them. They can then provide answers to questions and solutions to problems. But, those workers who come up with these thoughts could be told that it wouldn’t work by those they love, or that these thoughts are wrong for subjective reasons, etc… We can take aspiring actresses for an example, these people dream of becoming one of Hollywood’s elite, but if these people are always told that it’s a dream that is simply too impossible to achieve these potentially brilliant artists will not be able to show the world a possible Oscar winning performance.

Second, private lives should be left as separate as possible from the work place because in some cases we could endanger the people we love, in some cases. Take for instance, a police officer, a detective, or a Federal agent. These people do their jobs so well that in some cases their work could sometimes become personal in that these people would let their personal lives almost mix with their work. Eventually, these people either lose their loved ones or ruin the cases they’re working on putting even more people in jeopardy.

Admittedly, these two elements are essential to one’s creativity. Meaning, some people are inspired by those that they are surrounded by and the activities they’re involved in. However, employees can be inspired by these things while keeping these elements out of the office.

In sum, although people need private lives and personal activities to remain human and to enhance their creativity, these private activities must remain separate from the working environment to keep the work people do objective and to ensure that the task that has been done has been done well.

Whether Employees should keep their private lives and personal activities out of the workplace is a controversial issue. Others may state that when employees share their private perspectives that it creates cohesion in the workforce. However, in my view the risk of perceived offense and exclusion outweigh the potential benefits of fraternization in a company.

The chief reason for my view is that a group of employees may partake of a behavior that could be perceived offensive by another, even when the group is well meaning in its intentions. For instance, while I was employed at Electronic Arts I witnessed a group of employees partake in online gambling. Another individual in the same group felt pressured to join and instead chose to voice a complaint to upper management. Fortunately, this particular instance had a positive outcome. However, if the employee had felt seriously offended, then the company as a whole could have been legally liable for damages.

Another reason for my view is that personal activities may be a reason to form groups to exclude coworkers. For example, in a recent episode of the TV hit sitcom 'The Office'; Jim, the protagonist, transfers to another office where all of his coworkers spend the day playing video games. Unfortunately, Jim is not very good at video games and gets reprimanded by the boss, even though he is good at his actual job, a salesman. This clearly indicates how sharing a personal activity can be detrimental to the productivity of a workforce, by rewarding achievement in personal activities over job performance.

In sum, employees should withhold sharing their private lives and personal activities at work. In most cases, the potential liability for perceived offense and the risk of exclusion outweigh the benefits that could be gained.
1.        Admittedly, I cannot deny that the author is on the correct philosophical side for his/her claim that employees should guard against allowing their personal life to impinge upon their job performance or intrude on coworkers.
2.        Despite the above merit of the speaker’s claim, nonetheless, I find it problematic to overemphasize negative effects of person life on job performance. Sharing the personal interests and activities moderately may help build the positive relationship among colleagues. Engaging coworkers in occasional conversation about personal interests and activities can help build collegiality among coworkers that adds to their sense of common purpose on the job.
3.        Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that the speaker seems to offers an either-or choice between private activities and job performance in protecting environment; and he prefers the latter, while fails to rule out possibility that adjusting these two choices in a middle ground might produce better results. Although these two roles of people’s life may conflict with each other, they are two aspects of one’s life and it is absolutely possible for us to strike a balance between these two. After all, you cannot discard your left hand only because your right hand is becoming more important.

bigcrab

Optional words: Separate/ isolate/ exclude; Working atmosphere, morale, corporate culture.

By the same token, however, employees who are too aloof—sharing nothing personal with others—may be resented by coworkers who perceive them as arrogant, unfriendly, or uncooperative. The ill-will and lack of communication that is likely to result may ultimately harm the organization.
Personal activities should not be brought to one's workplace since they can reduce one's efficiency. Thinking about one's private life can distract one from his or her work. Talking about private life and doing personal activities can disturb other fellow workers.
An employee feels valued when the boss takes time to ask about the employee’s family or recent vacation. The employee, in turn, is likely to be more loyal to and cooperative with the boss. Company-sponsored social events—picnics, parties, excursions, and so forth—also help to produce greater cohesiveness in an organization,
The issue here is whether an international effort to regulate children’s access to adult material on the Internet is worthwhile. In my view, nations should attempt to regulate such access by cooperative regulatory effort. I base this view on the universality and importance of the interest in protecting children from harm, and on the inherently pandemic nature of the problem.
Adults everywhere have a serious interest in limiting access by children to pornographic material. Pornographic material tends to confuse children—distorting their notion of sex, of themselves as sexual beings, and of how people ought to treat one another. Particularly in the case of domination and child pornography, the messages children receive from pornographic material cannot contribute in a healthy way to their emerging sexuality. Given this important interest that knows no cultural bounds, we should regulate children’s access to sexually explicit material on the Internet.
However, information on the Internet is not easily contained within national borders. Limiting access to such information is akin to preventing certain kinds of global environmental destruction. Consider the problem of ozone depletion thought to be a result of chloroflourocarbon (CFC) emissions. When the government regulated CFC production in the U.S., corporations responsible for releasing CFC’s into the atmosphere simply moved abroad, and the global threat continued. Similarly, the Internet is a global phenomenon; regulations in one country will not stop “contamination” overall. Thus, successful regulation of Internet pornography requires international cooperation, just as successful CFC regulation finally required the joint efforts of many nations.
Admittedly, any global regulatory effort faces formidable political hurdles, since cooperation and compliance on the part of all nations—even warring ones—is inherently required. Nevertheless, as in the case of nuclear disarmament or global warming, the possible consequences of failing to cooperate demand that the effort be made. And dissenters can always be coerced into compliance politically or economically by an alliance of influential nations.
In sum, people everywhere have a serious interest in the healthy sexual development of children and, therefore, in limiting children’s access to Internet pornography. Because Internet material is not easily confined within national borders, we can successfully regulate children’s access to adult materials on the Internet only by way of international cooperation.

bigcrab

Nations should cooperate to develop regulations that limit children’s access to adult material on the Internet.”*15
*The Internet is a worldwide computer network
View1: adult material on the internet may have terrible affect on children with immature point of view and judgment.  
Evidence: pornographic material. tends to confuse children----distorting their notion of sex, and of how people ought to treat one another.
View2:since Internet has no national boundaries, nations should attempt to regulate such access by cooperative regulatory effort.

bigcrab

100 “If a nation is to ensure its own economic success, it must maintain a highly competitive educational system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries.”
I don’t think it is a good idea to design an educational system that focuses mainly on competition. For although a little competition might produce desired results, in the long run too much competition will be destructive. Instead, I believe that our national economic success will be better promoted by an educational system that encourages cooperative learning among students, and with students from other countries.
Granted, competitiveness is an important aspect of human nature. And, properly directed, it can motivate us to reach higher and produce more, not to mention meet deadlines. But being competitive fixes our focus externally, on marking and beating the progress of others with whom we compete. Such external motivation can direct our attention away from creative solutions to our problems, and away from important human values like cooperation and fair play. Indeed, a highly competitive environment can foster cheating and ruthless back-stabbing within an organization, and ill-will and mistrust among nations. In the extreme case, competition between nations becomes war.
On the other hand, an environment of cooperation encourages us to discover our common goals and the best ways to achieve them. At the national and international levels, our main interests are in economic wellbeing and peace. In fact, economic success means little without the security of peace. Thus, global peace becomes a powerful incentive for developing educational models of cooperative learning, and implementing exchange programs and shared research projects among universities from different countries.
Moreover, research suggests that cooperative settings foster greater creativity and productivity than competitive ones. This has been shown to be the case both in institutions of higher learning and in business organizations. If true, it seems reasonable to argue that national economic success would be similarly tied to cooperative rather than competitive effort.
In conclusion, competition can provide an effective stimulus to achievement and reward. Even so, I believe it would be unwise to make competition the centerpiece of our educational system. We stand to reap greater benefits, including economic ones, by encouraging cooperative learning.