Translation work part1
These days, lots of people ask me to talk about “the tiger event”. But I have already told them there is nothing to say since so many people have already commented on that, leaving a limited space for further discussion.
In fact, I used to be one of those people who enjoy discussing and criticizing current events. As a writer, it is, to some extent, inevitable to publish some kind of “objective” opinions on particular things to make myself look smart. However, I have come to realize over time that we could hardly be absolutely objective. Most comments are biased with the personal feelings of writers themselves and this is the reason why people tend to be divided in opinions.
That is the part I feel most uncomfortable with because this kind of divergences or even conflicts are of no value. So are the debates evoked by the recent “tiger event”: Some debates emphasize on rules and others focus more on compassion. The former are based on rationality while the latter one sensibility. However, they are completely not the same thing. People view the problem from different perspectives. Furthermore, the fact is the man is already dead, after which, discussing whether he deserved it or not is actually a worthless consumption.
It is like when you are trying to reason things out with your girlfriend, she says there is a problem with your attitude but you think she is not thinking logically at all and she, in turns, says you don’t love her. This kind of confusing and meaningless argument is what the entire Internet is filled with. So it is the reason why I choose to stand aside watching others discussing most of recent events. After all, talking in that way is just fine with your girlfriend, but it is completely a waste of time arguing with a bunch of people you don’t even know.
So today I am not going to make any comment on this issue or to discuss whether the tiger is worth our pity or not, whether the dodger deserved to die or not. Instead, I would rather talk about the objectivity and the reason why most of us cannot be absolute objective.
I remember somebody once asked me a question: “To what extent does one’s attitude to you affect your estimation towards him?” This is an interesting question. For example, someone does all kinds of evils but treats you nice, only you, and even saved your life. Would it make you reconsider your previous judgement and then come to the conclusion that he might have his own reasons doing so?
Search from various English teachers...
Corrections · 3
0
But I have already told them there is nothing to say since so many people have already commented on that/it, leaving (a) limited space for further discussion.
In fact, I used to be one of those people who enjoys discussing and criticizing current events. As a writer, it is, to some extent, inevitable to/that I publish some kind of “objective” opinions on particular things to make myself look smart. However, I have come to realize over time that we could can hardly be absolutely objective. Most comments are biased with the personal feelings of writers themselves/their authors and this is the reason why people tend to be divided in opinions.
That is the part I feel most uncomfortable with because thisthese kind of divergences or even conflicts are of no value. SoNeither are the debates evoked by the recent “tiger event”: Some debates emphasize on rules and others focus more on compassion.("neither" instead of "so" because its negative "of no value" "put emphasis on rules") The former are based on rationality while the latter one sensibility. However, they are completely not the same thing. People view the problem from different perspectives. Furthermore, the fact is the man is already dead, after which, discussing whether he deserved it or not is actually a worthless consumption.(Not sure about "consumption" here. It doesn't sound right "Shopping too much is an example of consumerism." "He died of consumption in the 1800s." "She died after her consumption of poison." You could write the Chinese word maybe? You could just say "is actually a waste of time.")
It is like when you are trying to reason things out with your girlfriend, and she says there is a problem with your attitude but you think she is not thinking logically at all and she, in turns, says you don’t love her. This kind of confusing and meaningless argument is what the entire Internet is filled with. So it is the reason why I choose to stand aside watching others discussing most of recent events. After all, talking in that way is just fine with your girlfriend, but it is completely a waste of time arguing with a bunch of people you don’t even know.(or "a complete waste of time")
So today I am not going to make any comment on this issue or to discuss whether the tiger is worth our pity or not, whether the dodger deserved to die or not. (I don't know what a "dodger" is?) Instead, I would rather talk about the objectivity and the reason why most of us cannot be absolutely objective.
I remember somebody once asked me a question: “To what extent does one’s a person's attitude to you affect your estimation towardsof him?”("feelings towards" "estimation of" "one's" refers to the subject personally, so it doesn't make sense here.) This is an interesting question. For example, someone does all kinds of evils but treats you nice, only you, and even saved your life. Would it make you reconsider your previous judgement and then come to the conclusion that he might have his own reasons for doing so? (For doing what? "for doing evil"? is the previous judgment about the evils he's done? I don't understand this sentence.)
In fact, I used to be one of those people who enjoys discussing and criticizing current events. As a writer, it is, to some extent, inevitable to/that I publish some kind of “objective” opinions on particular things to make myself look smart. However, I have come to realize over time that we could can hardly be absolutely objective. Most comments are biased with the personal feelings of writers themselves/their authors and this is the reason why people tend to be divided in opinions.
That is the part I feel most uncomfortable with because thisthese kind of divergences or even conflicts are of no value. SoNeither are the debates evoked by the recent “tiger event”: Some debates emphasize on rules and others focus more on compassion.("neither" instead of "so" because its negative "of no value" "put emphasis on rules") The former are based on rationality while the latter one sensibility. However, they are completely not the same thing. People view the problem from different perspectives. Furthermore, the fact is the man is already dead, after which, discussing whether he deserved it or not is actually a worthless consumption.(Not sure about "consumption" here. It doesn't sound right "Shopping too much is an example of consumerism." "He died of consumption in the 1800s." "She died after her consumption of poison." You could write the Chinese word maybe? You could just say "is actually a waste of time.")
It is like when you are trying to reason things out with your girlfriend, and she says there is a problem with your attitude but you think she is not thinking logically at all and she, in turns, says you don’t love her. This kind of confusing and meaningless argument is what the entire Internet is filled with. So it is the reason why I choose to stand aside watching others discussing most of recent events. After all, talking in that way is just fine with your girlfriend, but it is completely a waste of time arguing with a bunch of people you don’t even know.(or "a complete waste of time")
So today I am not going to make any comment on this issue or to discuss whether the tiger is worth our pity or not, whether the dodger deserved to die or not. (I don't know what a "dodger" is?) Instead, I would rather talk about the objectivity and the reason why most of us cannot be absolutely objective.
I remember somebody once asked me a question: “To what extent does one’s a person's attitude to you affect your estimation towardsof him?”("feelings towards" "estimation of" "one's" refers to the subject personally, so it doesn't make sense here.) This is an interesting question. For example, someone does all kinds of evils but treats you nice, only you, and even saved your life. Would it make you reconsider your previous judgement and then come to the conclusion that he might have his own reasons for doing so? (For doing what? "for doing evil"? is the previous judgment about the evils he's done? I don't understand this sentence.)
Want to progress faster?
Join this learning community and try out free exercises!
Don’t miss out on the opportunity to learn a language from the comfort of your own home. Browse our selection of experienced language tutors and enroll in your first lesson now!
Start Learning Today
