For most people, speaking a foreign language is more important than writing it. Much of our communication is spoken, even with technology such as email and instant messaging available to us. Most of the time when we interact with others, we are talking.
Speaking a language is more useful for everyday situations than writing it. Getting about, ordering food, buying groceries, asking for directions and asking for help all require spoken language. These daily activities are very difficult to perform without the ability to speak the language. I have never been in a situation when I wished I could write a word or sentence in a foreign language. Many times, I have wished I could say what I was thinking.
Most people learn a foreign language to be able to talk to people when they travel. Most travel is for holidays, sometimes even very extended holidays. In order to get by, we need spoken language skills, not written skills. Very few people need to write in a foreign language unless they are travelling abroad to study or to work.
Certainly, writing is necessary for education or for work. However, before learning to write, a person needs to learn to speak and understand the language. Speaking is crucial even for employees and students. A grammar check on the computer can help with emails, essays, or reports. However, if someone cannot communicate verbally, work or study will be difficult.
I do think that written language skills are important, but spoken skills are more important. A certain level of literacy makes life easier and perhaps more fulfilled. However, all over the world, there are people who cannot read or write in any language. These people can still get by using their oral communication. Their lives would be improved by being able to read and write, but their lives would be impossible if they could not speak to others and be understood.
"; slowniczek[1]="instant messaging - komunikator internetowy
available - dostępny
get about - podróżować
extended - przedłużony
get by - radzić sobie
crucial - decydujący, zasadniczy, kluczowy
verbally - ustnie
literacy - umiejętność czytania i pisania
The question “To have or to be?” suggests to me a philosophical debate. Which is more important, what we have or what we are? What should we strive for, personal possessions or personal growth? I think this is what the question asks.
I think it is more important to be than it is to have. The sort of person I am influences me more than what I own does. For example, if I have done something I know to be unkind or wrong, I will worry. I might not sleep well at night. I might feel anxious and uptight. I will worry far more about what I have done than I would about not having the right pair of jeans. My conscience will never be clear because of my possessions. I can only clear it through my actions.
If I want a meaningful life, I must not focus on getting more things. I must focus on connecting with others and growing as a person. Meaning in life comes from connecting with other people. What we have is not a basis for making connections, but who we are certainly is. People do judge us at first because of the clothes we wear, the car we drive, or the street in which we live. However, people remain our friends because of the qualities we have. We do not keep our friends unless they value us for who we are.
It is nice to have things. Possessions can bring physical comfort or add to our esteem. However, it is more important to have inner confidence and pride in what qualities we have rather than in what we own. Possessions can be taken away, lost, damaged or devalued. If our worth has been determined by those possessions, we will feel worthless. It is much better to determine our worth through our own actions and qualities.
So to answer the question – “To have or to be?” – I would have to say, “To be!”
"; slowniczek[2]="strive for - dążyć do
personal possessions - rzeczy osobiste, przedmioty, które się posiada, dobytek
personal growth - rozwój osobisty
anxious - zaniepokojony
uptight - spięty
conscience - sumienie
qualities - cechy
add to our esteem - zwiększyć szacunek/poważanie
inner - wewnętrzny
devalue - dewaluować
determine - określać, wyznaczać
worthless - bezwartościowy
Domestic violence should be treated as a serious crime, simply because it is. All violence is criminal, unless it is in self-defence. Anyone who inflicts physical harm on another person is committing a crime. Perhaps this crime can be seen as even more serious when it’s committed against a loved one.
Physical abuse in relationships is devastating. It affects a person’s self-esteem and ability to trust others. If the very person who is meant to love you above all others raises hands against you, how are you meant to feel about yourself and others? Of course you will feel worthless and cautious about trusting people. Domestic violence is an extreme betrayal.
Children who grow up seeing violence in the home are at risk of living with violence as adults. Kids who witness violence may become violent or may be victims of violence later. Children may see violence as normal and acceptable. In fact, it is neither normal nor acceptable. Their esteem is also affected as they see a loved one being assaulted and their ability to trust others is weakened as they see one parent hitting another. Children may also themselves be victims of a violent parent or may feel helpless to stop the abuse they see happening at home.
Families become broken as a result of domestic violence. Whether a marriage lasts or not, the family unit is not strong if one partner batters another. Home is the place a person is meant to feel safest. When people cannot feel secure in their safety in their own homes, those homes are broken. Children and adults living in broken homes struggle to become confident, contributing members of society. Violence in the home is completely devastating.
Domestic violence creates a cycle of abuse that must be stopped. One way this can end is by tougher treatment of domestic abuse by the courts and by the police. If sentences for abusers are stronger, the message to society will become clear. Assaults in the home will not be tolerated.
"; slowniczek[3]="domestic violence - przemoc w rodzinie
self-defence - samoobrona
inflict - zadawać, powodować
commit - popełniać
abuse - krzywdzenie, maltretowanie; krzywdzić, maltretować
devastating - niszczycielski, druzgocący
affect - wpływać
self-esteem - poczucie własnej wartości
betrayal - zdrada
witness - być świadkiem
victim - ofiara
assault - atakować; atak
batter - bić, maltretować
struggle - starać się, walczyć
sentence - wyrok
Television advertising is a very powerful way of selling merchandise. Every day, people see advertisements for almost every product imaginable. Often the products on offer are for children. Should advertisers be allowed to aim their ads at children or should this be banned? I don’t think a ban is necessary. I think parental monitoring is needed.
Children are exposed to a great deal of advertising through television. Most of the time children sit in front of a TV alone or with their friends and siblings. This allows them to be accessed by companies without any interference from parents or other adults. I think this is where the problem lies. If parents either limited television time or watched it with their children, television would not be such an influence.
It is true that many commercials are aimed at children, especially commercials for fast food, breakfast cereals, junk food and toys. The purpose of this advertising is to gain a customer for life. What we grow up eating, drinking or enjoying is very important to us as adults. We will even encourage our children to enjoy the same things. By targeting one child, an advertiser can sell to him, to his parents and to his children in the future. Some people may argue that this is clever marketing. Others may say it is immoral. I think it is indeed clever, and perhaps a little devious, but not immoral.
Yes, it is true that advertisements are made to get children to demand certain products from their parents. However, it is up to the parents to decide whether or not to buy the product. If parents are giving in to demands created by advertising, they can only blame themselves, not the ad.
Children are impressionable. They rely on adults to guide their experiences and views of the world. If children are being bombarded with messages about the things they should buy, they will believe these messages. So, do I think these messages should be banned since they are not entirely ethical and affect young minds? No, I don’t think banning advertising aimed at children is the answer. I think the answer is more parental guidance over television viewing.
"; slowniczek[4]="merchandise - towar, towary
parental monitoring - kontrola rodziców
exposed to - wystawiony/narażony na
siblings - rodzeństwo
interference - interwencja, ingernecja, wtrącanie się
target - obierać za cel
devious - przebiegły, pokrętny
give in - ulec, ustąpić, poddać się
ad - reklama
impressionable - podatny na wpływy
rely on - polegać na
parental guidance - opieka/pomoc rodziców
It seems that Hollywood cannot resist turning best selling books into films. I guess the idea is that if people like the story so much, they will come to see it on the big screen. However, more often than not, great books don’t translate into great films. Most likely, this is because books and films are very different media. It’s a bit like having a conversation in person and having one over email. Both might contain the exact same words, but they may be perceived very differently.
When I read an excellent book, I become absorbed in the story and in the author’s words. These don’t always make the transition to film very well. Films cannot easily show me a character’s inner thoughts, feelings or experiences of events. Books allow me to get inside the characters’ heads and to empathise with them in ways that films cannot. So that can be lost in film adaptations.
Films are also limited in length. To include every event or detail in a book, filmmakers would need hours and hours of film time. No audience would sit in a cinema for ten hours. However, a lot of the scenes or moments that made the book great don’t make the cut in films, so the story doesn’t seem the same.
Perhaps some don’t consider the Harry Potter series to be “literary,” but the best selling books tell gripping stories about sympathetic and interesting characters. The films present flat, wooden characters whom I find myself annoyed by rather than cheering for. These films rely on the success of the books to sell cinema tickets. They have sold millions of tickets worldwide. However, as films with no book behind them, they are mediocre at best.
In my opinion, very few film adaptations of literary works have been worth the price of admission. And even fewer are worthy of the original book. Sometimes great books can make great films, especially thrillers like Silence of the Lambs. Books that rely on great character development or interpersonal relationships are harder to make into decent films.
"; slowniczek[5]="perceive - postrzegać
transition - przejście
inner - wewnętrzny
empathise - utożsamiać się uczuciowo
make the cut - zakwalifikować się, dostać się
gripping - pasjonujący, wciągający, trzymający w napięciu
mediocre - przeciętny, mierny
admission - wstęp
decent - porządny, przyzwoity, ekstra
A healthy lifestyle is, in my opinion, one of balance and moderation. Healthy people enjoy regular exercise, balanced diets, moderate amounts of alcohol, and active social lives. Professional athletes have to be very focused on their sport, almost to the point of obsession. There is nothing healthy about the way they must live. Professional sport is about making money, not about healthy lifestyles.
As an example, I will talk about football players. During the season, football players must train and play very hard. This often leads to injuries to their joints or muscles. Managers cannot allow endless time for players to recover since they are needed on the team. Also, the club will be paying that player a lot of money. He cannot be allowed to sit on the bench for longer than necessary. Sometimes, this means players have to perform while recovering. They often need steroids or other potentially harmful medications to help keep them going. This is not good for anyone’s body in the long term.
Also, football players have to travel a lot during the season to play games away from home, possibly in other countries. This takes players away from their families and friends and makes it difficult to socialise with anyone other than their team mates. It’s not healthy to have a limited social circle.
Footballers definitely make a lot of money and have access to a decadent lifestyle. This means they can have whatever they want, whenever they want it. Some players may handle this well, but many will develop an over-inflated sense of importance. This certainly is not healthy.
Professional football players must train for hours a day during the season. They are paid to keep their fitness levels very high. This is their job. The rest of us don’t have the same amount of time to dedicate to our physical fitness. We compare ourselves to them, thinking they are healthier because they can perform their sport so well. However, it is unfair to expect ourselves to exercise for hours a day when we have regular jobs.
Not only do professional athletes live extreme lives, they put pressure on the esteem of non-athletes. So, I think there is very little in the life of a professional sportsperson that is healthy.
"; slowniczek[6]="moderation - umiar, umiarkowanie
joints - stawy
muscles - mięśnie
recover - wyzdrowieć
steroids - sterydy
in the long term - na dłuższą metę
over-inflated - zawyżony
Violence in films is fairly commonplace. Even children’s films contain a certain amount of violence. Does this affect people’s behaviour? Yes, I think it does. How strongly it affects people varies as much as individual people vary. Some of us will see a lot of violence on cinema screens and never raise a hand in anger. A very small minority will imitate exactly what they have seen in films.
Not too long ago, a children’s film, Kung Fu Panda, was playing in the cinemas. A friend of mine took her daughters, aged six and four, to see the film. Afterwards, the girls engaged in “kung fu” fights at every opportunity. They didn’t aim to hurt each other, but they were copying what they had seen their favourite characters do. Did the film affect their behaviour? It certainly did. Was it harmful? In their case, it wasn’t harmful, but my friend did find it annoying and somewhat alarming.
Personally, I have seen many films that have contained a lot of violence. However, I have not been violent to anyone as a result. I know the difference between reality and the fantasy that is the film world. For people who do not understand this, films can affect them rather deeply. These people would be affected by stories, books, newspapers and television as much as they would by films. I don’t think the problem is the film itself; it is the person who may be watching the film. If someone has a psychological problem, he or she may become violent because of seeing a film. Healthy, stable people do not become violent because of watching something on screen.
Seeing violent scenes in films can cause many different reactions in us. Some of us may want to turn away and some may get an adrenalin rush. Violent films certainly do affect the people watching them. Does it turn gentle people into violent criminals? No, I don’t think so.
"; slowniczek[7]="be commonplace - być na porządku dziennym, być rzeczą zwyczajną/powszednią
engage in - wdawać się w
stable - zrównoważony, opanowany, stabilny
adrenalin rush - przypływ adrenaliny
In the modern world, we have come to rely very heavily upon technology. What would happen if someone took away all of the computers, mobile phones and the Internet? Would we survive? Would society collapse? I have a feeling it would.
These days, everything is done on computers. Cars are hooked up to computers to see what is wrong with them. Groceries are scanned by computers at check-outs. Paramedics enter patient information into laptops from the back of ambulances. Nothing we do seems to escape the use of a computer.
It used to be that people could use basic tools to fix almost anything and people did most repairs for themselves. Now, everything has become specialised and complex due to technology. Most of us don’t have the skills required to be self-sufficient. We need computers and the people trained to use them to keep our daily lives running smoothly.
Almost everyone owns a mobile phone and we have to take them with us wherever we go. In fact when you leave the house without your phone, you feel lost and panicked. What if you miss a call? What if you need to call someone? We don’t feel comfortable without our access to others close at hand.
We rely heavily on technology for entertainment as well as for our social lives. However, the business world also relies on instant communication. Offices use emails rather than internal post to save paper and to have instant access to staff. People prefer to email rather than phone so that there’s a record of what was said or requested. If the computer systems go down in a business, time and work is lost, costing the company money. No modern business or organisation is without an IT department.
Could we get by if we didn’t have our technology? I don’t think so. We have come to rely too much on computers, mobiles, and the Internet. We’ve lost a lot of skills and knowledge to do things without them. Unfortunately, technology is here to stay.
"; slowniczek[8]="survive - przetrwać, przeżyć
collapse - upaść, zawalić się, runąć
hook up - podłączać
paramedic - sanitariusz, sanitariuszka
complex - złożony
smoothly - gładko, bez problemów
miss a call - nie odebrać telefonu
instant - natychmiastowy
internal - wewnętrzny
go down - zepsuć się
get by - poradzić sobie
be here to stay - zadomowić się, zostać na stałe
There is big difference between a zoo and a circus regarding the use and welfare of the animals. I am not against zoos. In fact, I think many zoos play an important role in saving endangered animal species. However, I do agree that circuses offer animals for entertainment in a selfish and inhumane way.
Many circus acts that use animals involve the animal doing things that they naturally would not do. Do bears ride bicycles in the woods? Do elephants balance on tiny boxes in the wild? No, they do not. These tricks look amusing to some, but to me, they degrade the animal.
Circuses often travel from city to city, taking their animals on the road in enclosures that are far too small. Forcing animals to live in restrictive cages is inhumane. Only letting animals out in order to force them to perform unnatural acts is cruel and selfish. Elephants, for example, are often prodded with metal hooks or electric prods in order to keep the trainers safe. If these people weren’t using the animals for their own selfish gain, they would not need protection.
When I see bears or big cats, like lions or tigers, muzzled and shoved in cages, I feel incredibly sad. This sort of life is far different from what they would experience in the wild. Circus life does not imitate natural life for wild animals in any way. The animals are forced to live in appalling conditions and to do things against their nature and instinct.
On the other hand, zoos attempt to recreate an animal’s natural habitat as much as possible. Zoos do not ask animals to directly entertain the public. People are only allowed to look at the animals from a safe distance. Visitors are usually asked not to provoke the animals, feed them or annoy them in any way.
While I think circuses treat animals in a cruel and selfish manner, I feel zoos are humane. Often, zoos offer a species its best chance to survive.
"; slowniczek[9]="regarding - w odniesieniu do
welfare - dobro; opieka
endangered animal species - zagrożone gatunki zwierząt
selfish - samolubny
inhumane - nieludzki
circus acts - sztuczki/popisy cyrkowe
degrade - poniżać
enclosure - zagroda, zamknięta/ogrodzona przestrzeń
restrictive - ograniczający swobodę ruchów
cruel - okrutny
prod - szturchać, popychać
hook - hak
electric prod - paralizator elektryczny
gain - zysk
muzzled - w kagańcu
shove - wpychać
appalling - przerażający, bulwersujący
natural habitat - środowisko naturalne
“What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.” This is probably the most famous quote from Friedrich Nietzsche. What did he mean by this? Do I agree with him?
I think what Nietzsche meant was that life is full of struggles, but we survive them. Anything we get through shows us how strong we really are. If we had a life free from any adversity, we would remain weak and uncertain of our ability to deal with hardship. If we survive crisis, we become stronger having used our wits, courage and resources to overcome. Exercising these things is like exercising a muscle. They only grow through use. I think he is also saying that if things get hard, you cannot give up. Only death can weaken a person.
In my opinion, Nietzsche was absolutely right. Overcoming difficult times in my own life has definitely made me a stronger person. I am not afraid of what may lie ahead because I know I can deal with anything. Having survived tragedies and difficulties has proven to me that I can. Before these things happened, I would have said I couldn’t cope with them, but I did. And I know that I could again if I had to. Would I choose to have these things happen? No, I would not. But I don’t live in fear of terrible things happening.
In fact, when I hear people worrying about or complaining about things that also used to upset me, I know how much stronger I have become. Having lived through difficult times, I have a better perspective on what true adversity is. Thus, I am stronger and much less vulnerable to life’s lesser struggles.
Nietzsche proposed the idea that what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger in the late 1800s, but it still is very relevant today. People will always have to face difficulties in life, but surviving these makes us stronger.
"; slowniczek[10]="struggles - walka, zamagania
get through - przechodzić, doświadczać
adversity - przeciwności losu, trudności
hardship - trudy, niedola, ciężar życia/losu
wits - rozum, umysł
courage - odwaga
resources - siły
overcome - przetrwać, pokonać, zwyciężyć
give up - poddać się
cope - radzić sobie
upset - martwić, denerwować
thus - tak więc
vulnerable - podatny, narażony, wrażliwy
relevant - istotny, ważny, znaczący; stosowny, odpowiedni