texte d'anglais à corriger
Posted: 11 Apr 2007 11:12
salut la compagnie! j'ai un boulot à faire, un texte qui doit me servir à uneprise de position qui sera suivie d'un petit débat. La position qui m'a été attribuée est "l'interdiction de fumer dans les lieux publics, c'est po bien" (no comment..).
Pourriez-vous jeter un coup d'oeil à ce txt pour corriger mes fautes de langue/vocabulaire/grammaire etc? Il est long donc je comprendrais tout à fait que tout ne soit pas fait ou que juste quelques points importants soient relevés. merci bcp par avance!
The debate of today is: is cigaret smoking has to be banned in bars ands public spaces? This one is of topicality since, as you obviously noticed, it is prohibited to smoke in the French publicplaces since the first of february. My intervention aims to show you in what this law is absurd and scandalous, and has consequently to be withdrawn. For that, it will first of all be necessary for us to think of the personal freedom of smoking, called into question by this decision. We will then see in what this one appears aggravating at the ideological level, that is to say in what it contributes to the installation of a society totally asepticized and governed by unbearable principles of sanitarianism.But it will be also seen that vis-a-vis with this will, reality is quite different, since the planet goes to the catastroph, because of the industrial and daily pollution, which it poisons us differently more than the cigaret. and against which no measurement is taken. Lastly, the last part of our analysis will show in what this duty of public health actually testifies to a great political and governmental hypocrisy.
We have evoked the principle of freedom, which governs the nation. Isn’t it called into question by this law? Indeed, in the places of exits, bar, nightclubs, restaurants, to smok is integral part of the activity. Although I don’t smoke it appears inconceivable to me that a smoker can drink his coffee without accompanying it by a small cigarette. That would be absolutely frustrating and unpleasant, both being indissociable. This banning will thus prevent him from living his choice to be a smoker, since this man will have no another choice that to stop the cigarette or to desert these places public from recreation and relaxation. You probably will think that this constraint which is imposed to him has to purpose to deliver the non-smokers of another constraint, much more dangerous, that of the passive nicotinism. But aren't the nonsmokers fully aware that this danger exists, and that they are free to choose of going or not in the smoked out places? It is true that if a nonsmoker wants to go in a public place but must abstain from because smoke disturbs him too much, its personal freedom will suffer too. This is why I do affirm that it is quite simply necessary to find solutions adapted and not to pose such rigid prohibitions. the public places must adapt to our way of life and not the reverse.Why not leave the choice with the managers to make a entirely smoker or non-smoker bar ? This way, the two types of customers will find their happiness there. But sometimes in a group of friends or a family some smoke and some don’t. Exist for a long time extractors of smoke, very powerful and effective apparatuses. this system is not developed because it’s considered as too much expensive for the establishments’owners . But today these places are deserted because they’re too smoked out, and the purchase of this apparatus would quickly be shown a profit if it makes it possible to preserve the customers. Moreover, the state could impose this system, by using the money deployed to take care of the respect of current prohibition and making use of it to subsidize of such purchases.
this only aspect answer the question without adopting of radical, extreme and total measures.
Furthermore, I can’t help thinking that this cigarette banning is disturbing on the level of morals and manners that it imposes. One should not smoke because that is harmful and dangerous,one should not either eat too fatty, too salted or too sweetened, because that made grow bigger and is bad for health. Our society wants us to have a more and more irreproachable hygiene and life style, privated of small pleasures.
Certainly, to eat at Mc Do is unhealthy, certainly to smoke spoil and damage our lungs, but one is conscious of this and it is and this drug is before all very pleasant and constitutes a pleasure. This law takes part of a larger phenomenom that still leds to this ambient sanitarianism, within an asepticized world.
But this sanitarianism is completely hypocritical. A nonsmoker who will come to howl with the scandal because his neighbour smokes will very leave this restaurant at the wheel from a large 4 4 very pollutant…In a more general way, industrial pollution and the carbon discharges of the innumerable vehicles kill us much more efficiently than the neighbour’s cigaret. There, however, no measurement of scale is taken in spite of the imminence of the catastrophe. Beautiful paradox! The great priorities are not treated but small measures are taken, requesting all the concentration of the government and giving him a positive image.
This is why it appears, and that will be the ultimate point of our reflexion, that this measurement of cigarette banning is demagogic and hypocritical. Indeed, the state refuses that one pollutes the lungs of our co-citizens in a hall of station or our colleagues in our place of work, but it grants an other year to us to do it in limp of night and the bars. Especially, if they have understood that smoking is too dangerous, why not to decide completely to ban the consumption of cigaret, and even to stop the sale of it? For the same reason as there is a prohibition today but no prevention which would consist of an real education and sensitizing as of childhood. This reason is simple: profit. The state enormously recovers taxes of the sale of tobacco. Even if there are less smokers, the price of the tobacco increases and the cases of the state are charmed. This lure of gain prevents from carrying out in a effective, concrete and real way, a true work and duty of public health, but does not prevent them simulating it. This is why I’m firmly opposed this law of smoking banning in public places.
Pourriez-vous jeter un coup d'oeil à ce txt pour corriger mes fautes de langue/vocabulaire/grammaire etc? Il est long donc je comprendrais tout à fait que tout ne soit pas fait ou que juste quelques points importants soient relevés. merci bcp par avance!
The debate of today is: is cigaret smoking has to be banned in bars ands public spaces? This one is of topicality since, as you obviously noticed, it is prohibited to smoke in the French publicplaces since the first of february. My intervention aims to show you in what this law is absurd and scandalous, and has consequently to be withdrawn. For that, it will first of all be necessary for us to think of the personal freedom of smoking, called into question by this decision. We will then see in what this one appears aggravating at the ideological level, that is to say in what it contributes to the installation of a society totally asepticized and governed by unbearable principles of sanitarianism.But it will be also seen that vis-a-vis with this will, reality is quite different, since the planet goes to the catastroph, because of the industrial and daily pollution, which it poisons us differently more than the cigaret. and against which no measurement is taken. Lastly, the last part of our analysis will show in what this duty of public health actually testifies to a great political and governmental hypocrisy.
We have evoked the principle of freedom, which governs the nation. Isn’t it called into question by this law? Indeed, in the places of exits, bar, nightclubs, restaurants, to smok is integral part of the activity. Although I don’t smoke it appears inconceivable to me that a smoker can drink his coffee without accompanying it by a small cigarette. That would be absolutely frustrating and unpleasant, both being indissociable. This banning will thus prevent him from living his choice to be a smoker, since this man will have no another choice that to stop the cigarette or to desert these places public from recreation and relaxation. You probably will think that this constraint which is imposed to him has to purpose to deliver the non-smokers of another constraint, much more dangerous, that of the passive nicotinism. But aren't the nonsmokers fully aware that this danger exists, and that they are free to choose of going or not in the smoked out places? It is true that if a nonsmoker wants to go in a public place but must abstain from because smoke disturbs him too much, its personal freedom will suffer too. This is why I do affirm that it is quite simply necessary to find solutions adapted and not to pose such rigid prohibitions. the public places must adapt to our way of life and not the reverse.Why not leave the choice with the managers to make a entirely smoker or non-smoker bar ? This way, the two types of customers will find their happiness there. But sometimes in a group of friends or a family some smoke and some don’t. Exist for a long time extractors of smoke, very powerful and effective apparatuses. this system is not developed because it’s considered as too much expensive for the establishments’owners . But today these places are deserted because they’re too smoked out, and the purchase of this apparatus would quickly be shown a profit if it makes it possible to preserve the customers. Moreover, the state could impose this system, by using the money deployed to take care of the respect of current prohibition and making use of it to subsidize of such purchases.
this only aspect answer the question without adopting of radical, extreme and total measures.
Furthermore, I can’t help thinking that this cigarette banning is disturbing on the level of morals and manners that it imposes. One should not smoke because that is harmful and dangerous,one should not either eat too fatty, too salted or too sweetened, because that made grow bigger and is bad for health. Our society wants us to have a more and more irreproachable hygiene and life style, privated of small pleasures.
Certainly, to eat at Mc Do is unhealthy, certainly to smoke spoil and damage our lungs, but one is conscious of this and it is and this drug is before all very pleasant and constitutes a pleasure. This law takes part of a larger phenomenom that still leds to this ambient sanitarianism, within an asepticized world.
But this sanitarianism is completely hypocritical. A nonsmoker who will come to howl with the scandal because his neighbour smokes will very leave this restaurant at the wheel from a large 4 4 very pollutant…In a more general way, industrial pollution and the carbon discharges of the innumerable vehicles kill us much more efficiently than the neighbour’s cigaret. There, however, no measurement of scale is taken in spite of the imminence of the catastrophe. Beautiful paradox! The great priorities are not treated but small measures are taken, requesting all the concentration of the government and giving him a positive image.
This is why it appears, and that will be the ultimate point of our reflexion, that this measurement of cigarette banning is demagogic and hypocritical. Indeed, the state refuses that one pollutes the lungs of our co-citizens in a hall of station or our colleagues in our place of work, but it grants an other year to us to do it in limp of night and the bars. Especially, if they have understood that smoking is too dangerous, why not to decide completely to ban the consumption of cigaret, and even to stop the sale of it? For the same reason as there is a prohibition today but no prevention which would consist of an real education and sensitizing as of childhood. This reason is simple: profit. The state enormously recovers taxes of the sale of tobacco. Even if there are less smokers, the price of the tobacco increases and the cases of the state are charmed. This lure of gain prevents from carrying out in a effective, concrete and real way, a true work and duty of public health, but does not prevent them simulating it. This is why I’m firmly opposed this law of smoking banning in public places.
...
lol. merci 
.