________manychangeshave_______,weshouldkeeppacewiththechangestoo.A.StakentheplaceB.BtakenplaceC.NtakenplaceD.As;beentakenplaceC广东省实验中学学年高一下学期期中英语答案该账号邮箱未验证，请后登录
请输入正确的密码!
记住登录状态
使用合作网站帐号登录 :
在线时间58 小时经验值313 小站金币0 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限20帖子
博士后, 积分 313, 距离下一级还需 188 积分
35小站金币
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In the busy and crowded world today,we should not expect people to be polite to each other.
On contemporary society, polite serves as a catalyst for our future success. However, when asked about whether people should be polite to each other,people get into a dilemma. Confucian，one of the greatest and most influential philosopher in ancient China, has insightfully commented&&“polite is the most important personality of a person”. I cling to an unshakeable belief that his comment gives answer to this question that people should be polite to each other no matter how busy and crowed the world is. To begin with, politeness help people to enhance work efficiency. People who are blessed with a friendly environment are able to pay more attention to their work rather than the conflicts.For instance, in today’s society, everyone are facing a great deal of pressure that may make people ignore the extremely significant value of polite. If we always yellow or shout at other coworkers, we may become less welcomed and even have some conflicts with others, which distract us from our daily work. In addition, when we attend to a business negotiation, polite is a prerequisite for people to&&achieve success. Therefore, In order to promote work efficiency,we should be polite to others, thus helping us to have a excellent performance.In addition, politeness is beneficial to make intimate friends. Under no circumstance would people like to make friends who is very rude. According to a survey conducted by Peking university,people tend to make friends with people who is polite to others. Moreover, if a person who is always smiling to his friends and helping others who are in a dilemma are more likely to be optimistic,open and kind. As a result, Not only could politeness make us more attractive ,but also could be beneficial for us to make friends.
Admittedly, people may be less polite in some emergency situation. For instance,&&when a police is in a criminal scene,& &being polite seems to be impossible and useless to arrest the criminal. Besides, A man is also impossible to say hello to others if his wife is going to give birth a baby. However, in most cases , we should be polite to others.
To sum up, politeness is conductive to make new friends and work more efficiency.In short, from what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that everyone should be polite to others.
相关帖子 |
在线时间2298 小时经验值81246 小站金币27506 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限200帖子
小站金币27506
同学们好，如果需要我批改作文的，请直接在作文发帖区发帖，并在标题中指定由我批改。在我空间留言区粘贴是无效的。谢谢各位配合
在线时间2298 小时经验值81246 小站金币27506 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限200帖子
小站金币27506
同学们好，如果需要我批改作文的，请直接在作文发帖区发帖，并在标题中指定由我批改。在我空间留言区粘贴是无效的。谢谢各位配合
在线时间58 小时经验值313 小站金币0 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限20帖子
博士后, 积分 313, 距离下一级还需 188 积分
发现好多问题！多谢老师！
在线时间54 小时经验值247 小站金币408 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限10帖子
博士生, 积分 247, 距离下一级还需 54 积分
小站金币408
ddddddddddddddddddddddddd
在线时间41 小时经验值316 小站金币34 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限20帖子
博士后, 积分 316, 距离下一级还需 185 积分
小站金币34
参考一下~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~····
在线时间28 小时经验值78 小站金币4 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限10帖子
高中生, 积分 78, 距离下一级还需 3 积分
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
该会员很懒，今天签到时没说话.
在线时间237 小时经验值860 小站金币50 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限20帖子
助教, 积分 860, 距离下一级还需 141 积分
小站金币50
嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻
在线时间116 小时经验值702 小站金币15 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限20帖子
助教, 积分 702, 距离下一级还需 299 积分
小站金币15
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
在线时间43 小时经验值831 小站金币19 最后登录注册时间主题精华0阅读权限20帖子
助教, 积分 831, 距离下一级还需 170 积分
小站金币19
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
又看见TPO小站,真开心^_^
我们将以您绑定的
作为接收批改短信的默认手机号码
订阅小站最新精品课程信息
输入您的手机号码，批改动态随时掌握！
订阅小站最新精品课程信息
您可以在设置—密码安全—绑定手机中随时修改您的手机号码
还差最后一步了!只要填写完邮箱即可同时获得批改短信提醒和小站精品课程信息两大福利了!
小站论坛，All Rights Reserved 小站国际教育&&沪ICP备号&&句型转换1.The English which is spoken in America is a little different from that which is spoken in Britian.There are some ___ ____ the English spoken in America ____ in Britian.2.We should fully use our natural resources.We should ___ ___ ____ ___ our natural resources.3.Actually,few of us will agree with him.____ ____ ____ ____ _____ ,few of us will agree with him.
孩子两啊咋
1 differences between and2 make full use of3 As a matter of fact
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
扫描下载二维码How Obamacare happened, and what might happen next.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie unwittingly ignited a firestorm
earlier this week when he responded to a reporter's question in
Great Britain about forced vaccinations of children in New Jersey
by suggesting that the law in the U.S. needs to balance the rights
of parents against the government's duty to maintain standards of
public health.
MORE ARTICLES BY
12.15.16 12:01 am
12.08.16 12:01 am
12.01.16 12:01 am
Before Christie could soften the tone of his use of the word
"balance," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul jumped into the fray to support
the governor. In doing so, he made a stronger case for the rights
of parents by advancing the view that all vaccines do not work for
all children and the ultimate decision-maker should be parents and
not bureaucrats or judges. He argued not for balance, but for
bias—in favor of parents.
When Christie articulated the pro-balance view, he must have
known that New Jersey law, which he enforces, has no balance, shows
no deference to parents' rights, and permits exceptions to
universal vaccinations only for medical reasons (where a physician
certifies that the child will get sicker because of a vaccination)
or religious objections. Short of those narrow reasons, in New
Jersey, if you don't vaccinate your children, you risk losing
parental custody of them.
The science is overwhelming that vaccinations work for most
children most of the time. Paul, who is a physician, said, however,
he knew of instances in which poorly timed vaccinations had led to
mental disorders. Yet, he was wise enough to make the pro-freedom
case, and he made it stronger than Christie did.
To Paul, the issue is not science. That's because in a free
society, we are free to reject scientific orthodoxy and seek
unorthodox scientific cures. Of course, we do that at our peril if
our rejection of truth and selection of alternatives results in
harm to others.
The issue, according to Paul, is: WHO OWNS YOUR BODY? This is a
question the government does not want to answer truthfully, because
if it does, it will sound like Big Brother in George Orwell's novel
1984. That's because the government believes it owns your
Paul and no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court have
rejected that concept. Under the natural law, because you retain
the rights inherent in your birth that you have not individually
given away to government, the government does not own your body.
Rather, you do. And you alone can decide your fate with respect to
the ingestion of medicine. What about children? Paul argues that
parents are the natural and legal custodians of their children's
bodies until they reach maturity or majority, somewhere between
ages 14 and 18, depending on the state of residence.
What do the states have to do with this? Under our Constitution,
the states, and not the federal government, are the guardians of
public health. That is an area of governance not delegated by the
states to the feds. Of course, you'd never know this to listen to
the debate today in which Big Government politicians, confident in
the science, want a one-size-fits-all regimen.
No less a champion of government in your face than Hillary
Clinton jumped into this debate with a whacky Tweet that argued
that because the Earth is round and the sky is blue and science is
right, all kids should be vaccinated. What she was really saying is
that in her progressive worldview, the coercive power of the
federal government can be used to enforce a scientific orthodoxy
upon those states and individuals who intellectually reject it.
In America, you are free to reject it.
Clinton and her Big Government colleagues would be wise to look
at their favorite Supreme Court decision: Roe v. Wade.
Yes, the same Roe v. Wade that 42 years ago unleashed 45
million abortions also defines the right to bear and raise children
as fundamental, and thus personal to parents, and thus largely
immune from state interference and utterly immune from federal
interference.
Paul's poignant question about who owns your body—and he would
be the first to tell you that this is not a federal issue—cannot be
ignored by Christie or Clinton or any other presidential candidate.
If Paul is right, if we do own our bodies and if we are the
custodians of our children's bodies until they reach maturity, then
we have the right to make health care choices free from government
interference, even if our choices are grounded in philosophy or
religion or emotion or alternative science.
But if Paul is wrong, if the government owns our bodies, then
the presumption of individual liberty guaranteed by the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution has been surreptitiously
discarded, and there will be no limit to what the government can
compel us to do or to what it can extract from us—in the name of
science or any other of its modern-day gods.
Photo Credit: Gates Foundation/Flickr
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is&Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty.&
GET REASON MAGAZINE
Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online
12.21.16 4:50 pm
12.21.16 4:30 pm
12.21.16 4:18 pm
12.21.16 3:40 pm
Bonnie Kristian
Scott Shackford
Emily Ekins
Emily Ekins
Emily Ekins
Jesse Walker
Brian Doherty
Debbie Nathan
&2016 Reason Foundation.|