關於 argue against中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

▌新聞英文 ▌
過去三個月疫情延燒，防疫概念股興起，國內外生醫公司抬頭，重新成為股市焦點，相關產業百家爭鳴，我到底要跟還是不跟？一起看看華爾街日報的說法：


As drug companies race to discover treatments for the new coronavirus, big investment firms are placing cautious bets on likely winners.
製藥公司競相研發新型冠狀病毒的治療方法，大型投資公司則對押注可能的贏家保持態度謹慎。

Yet, successful efforts that could help millions—or even billions—of people, might not result in big profits for shareholders, the investors argue.
不過，這些投資者認為，有望造福數百萬乃至數十億人的成功藥物研發，可能不會給股東帶來巨額利潤。

1.firm 公司，商號
2.place bets on 押注

Among the issues investors are struggling with: Can Covid-19 treatments help those sick while also protecting individuals against the virus, or will that require different drugs? Will vaccines render treatments less necessary? Will governments allow companies to charge high enough prices to generate sizable profits?
投資者面臨的問題包括：新冠治療藥物能否既幫助患者又幫助個人防護，還是說達到這兩個目的需要不同藥物？疫苗會不會降低治療藥物的必要性？政府會不會允許企業把價格定在足夠高的水準以產生可觀的利潤？

3.vaccine 疫苗
4.render 造成；使...變成

Some investors are focusing on treatments that may help those who are sick but also can prevent people from getting the virus, a larger potential market.
有的投資者將重點放在既有可能幫助治療患者、也可防止人們感染病毒的療法，後者是更大的潛在市場。
-


原來，藥物研發成功之後，不僅藥物本身的品質，政府的管制與介入、醫療市場的供需情況等各方面因素都會影響藥廠能否獲利，也難怪即便瑞德西韋（remdisivir）經實驗證實有其療效，許多投資客仍不看好吉利德製藥（Gilead）未來走向。

更多國際趨勢，繼續鎖定強尼金粉專，
一邊了解產業，
一邊學新聞英文。

國際新聞我都看風傳媒：https://events.storm.mg/member/JIWSJ/
（APP、網頁版都好用）
用強尼的推薦碼 JIWSJ，
一天一粒茶葉蛋的價格，
成為你耐心獲利的關鍵，
投資自己，絕對不能猶豫
-
英文報導｜Gregory Zuckerman @The Wall Street Journal
中文翻譯｜風傳媒x華爾街日報
整理撰文｜有事旁編喬 @強尼金口筆譯教學日記
-
#翻譯日常 #翻譯 #筆譯 #口譯 #自由譯者 #自由業 #英文 #中文 #英中新聞筆譯 #新聞英文 #國際新聞 #新聞編譯 #風傳媒

故事的後續和一些思辯

謝謝大家喜歡紐時廣告案幕後的故事
https://reurl.cc/O1VgoX

這幾天想了很多，有些心得

要關心時政，但不要政治化
Be political, not politicized.

聽國際狗語日報 X 百靈果News 談到「紐時其實親中」這集 （我是普通虔誠的百靈果教徒），Kylie 跟 Ken 講的很好，提醒我別忘批判思考

紐約時報可說是偏左派媒體，提倡進步價值，逢「川」必反，會拿中國議題打川普。這次疫情的報導卻不太質疑中國政府的數字，這點的確讓人疑惑

但或許紐時親不親中不是重點，我聽到他們主要強調的重點是，努力很好，但可以更好，而且應該用目的決定手段，而不是一廂情願，一頭熱

小有參與 #TaiwanCanHelp 紐時廣告案的我
聽到 Kylie 有對核心團隊提出建議
我覺得很不錯！
畢竟這次最大的感慨是

#會批評的人很多但會批改的人很少

他們在節目中提出了幾項讓錢可以「更有效」達成國際傳播效益的方式，例如投到 The Daily Show 或者美國（甚至世界）最多人聽的 Podcast 節目

我覺得是不錯的討論和批改，謝謝你們！

（其實我最近開始每天在讀的華爾街日報也是不錯的廣告選擇，讀者很多共和黨高收入族群）

雖然我不是廣告案發起人，但我想，創發、創造、創業，這些創字輩的，都需要 #被討厭的勇氣 也需要更多批判思考（轉頭看我自己創的公司就叫做 創譯語言顧問......）

秉持的不該是躲避批評，或者是說「沒有參與的人，吵什麼吵」或者「不要理他們」、「他們羨慕嫉妒啦」之類的噤聲、自我安慰

而是一邊站穩腳步，肯定好的，一邊自我檢討不好的，讓每一個下一次都可以更好！

（內心當然很希望有個程式可以篩選出最有智慧的意見，找出交集，產生最佳作法行動方針就是了，但就是還沒有這種東西）

這成長的心態不就跟口譯學習的道理一樣嗎？
要面對自己的不足，不斷打碎再練，又不能忘記肯定自己，否則無法繼續下去

——
有興趣跟我學口譯的人就自己去找吧，這篇就不業配線上課程了。
——

曾經，我一心覺得，只要好好鑽研翻譯，提升自己的造詣，不就好了嗎？何必「碰」政治和經濟？

後來理解：不管在什麼領域，都可以只活在自己的世界，但你其實不怎麼關心大環境。那是獨善其身和兼善天下理念的差異。

於是我轉變想法：關心政治不叫「碰政治」，因為政治的事就是人的事
而英文，是我們跟這個世界互動的好工具，所以不要躲避政治英文和經濟英文（學口譯一定要學啊，還有政治中文和經濟中文，永難忘記 20 幾歲才第一次讀經濟日報，覺得這不是中文）

但，人不要政治化。

——
評論家 Sonny Bunch 這兩段話很有智慧，一起來讀 political 和 politicized 的差異

Political：不必為了擁護捍衛自己的政治立場而感到羞愧

There’s nothing wrong with living a political life. That is, a life in which politics is one of your interests or your job, something you follow and keep track of and educate yourself on and argue about. The arena of politics is important; political decisions have consequences; and passionately arguing for your preferred political outcomes is nothing to be ashamed of.

the arena of politics 政治的競技場

Politicized：政治立場不合者，勢不兩立

A politicized life is a different beast, however. It treats politics as a zero sum game or a form of total warfare in which the other side must be obliterated. It alters every aspect of your being: where you shop; what you watch on TV; what sort of music you listen to; who you associate with. If you’re not with the politicized being, you’re against him—and if you’re against him, he is well within his rights to ruin you personally and economically. You, the political other, are a leper to be shunned, lest your thoughtcrimes infect the rest of society.

zero sum game 非輸即贏的零和遊戲
total warfare 全面戰事
obliterate 消滅
leper 痲瘋病患
thoughtcrime 思想犯罪

是不是很值得反思？

所以我說

要關心時政，但不要政治化
Be political, not politicized.

——
這也是自由最可貴的地方。
——

也許你常接觸紐約時報、時代雜誌、經濟學人
但不常接觸華爾街日報 The Wall Street Journal
如果想換個角度思考、看世界，學英文
不妨加入我的每日讀報學英文計畫
留言 Be political, not politicized.
就私訊你限時限量優惠

#沒有作息可言的

浩爾

【前港督彭定康錄影發言　促香港政府撤回修訂逃犯條例】

「我希望即使在這個最後階段，政府仍然可以退讓，撤回方案，不要再添亂。這修例不需要通過，亦不應該通過，香港應該繼續是一個有法治、有自由的社會，而不應該面對這些令人憂心的引渡修例。」

發言英文紀錄及中文翻譯：

Former Hong Kong Governor Lord Chris Patten video message Transcript

I know that this week in Hong Kong, thousands of people will be making their views clear, demonstrating against the proposals on extradition, which the government has put forward, extradition to China. It’s a proposal, or a set of proposals, which strike a terrible blow - I think - and so, I think to most people in Hong Kong and so does the international community, against the rule of law, against Hong Kong’s stability and security, against Hong Kong’s position as a great international trading hub. And the surprise is that the government in Hong Kong doesn’t seem to understand that. It does make you wonder sometimes who actually runs Hong Kong these days: is it the Hong Kong government or is it the joint liaison office acting on behalf of the communist regime in Beijing?

Why is this important? Well it’s the latest in a number of things that have happened in recent years which have tightened Beijing’s grip on Hong Kong, and which have profoundly worried people. I think for ten or a dozen years after 1997, things in Hong Kong went pretty well. Of course they could have gone better, I’m sorry that Beijing throttled the development of democracy, much against the promises that have been made earlier. But by and large, I think, Hong Kong remained a very free and successful society.

But ever since the regime in Beijing started to roll back Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and the developments that have taken place under Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji and Hu Jintao, and Wen Jiabao; ever since then, with the Party taking control over everything, cracking down on dissidents, cracking down on human rights, locking people up, incarcerating them in Xinjiang and so on. Ever since then, we know that Beijing has also been tightening its grip, or trying to, in Hong Kong. And I think that the latest proposals on extradition are an example of that.

Now a lot of very spurious arguments are put forward, it said that the present situation is a “loophole” which needs to be filled up - that’s absolute nonsense. People have known exactly why there shouldn’t be an extradition agreement with China for years, and many of the arguments put for the government’s proposals don’t actually pass the laugh-off-your-seat test. The argument that, well, it’s better to have an extradition treaty than to abduct people illegally from Hong Kong - are people really supposed to believe that?

Except for, but of course, Western democracies in Europe have extradition agreements with China, but they’re in a very different position to the position that Hong Kong is in. The reason why international chambers of commerce, why lawyers, why business around the world, why governments have raised their objections is very simple: because what these proposals do is to remove the firewall between Hong Kong’s rule of law and the idea of law - which prevails in Communist China - an idea of law where there aren’t any independent courts, where the courts and the security services and the party’s rules - which are, sometimes, pretty obscure - are rolled altogether. That’s why we’ve seen recently Canadian citizens that are locked up are taken as if it were hostage against things happening in Canada itself under the rule of law there. So it’s not surprising that people are so worried about what is happening.

I know that when people talk about the particular problem in relation to Taiwan, the leaders of the Hong Kong Bar Association over the last few years, I think a dozen of them, have put forward proposals which show how you could deal with that issue building on the existing common law.

So these proposals are bad for Hong Kong, they - I think - raise all sorts of questions which the government hasn’t even thought through, not least about Hong Kong’s economic importance and economic stability. We know very well that Hong Kong needs to be treated separately in economic and commercial matters from the rest of China. When I was governor a long time ago, I used to travel to Washington fairly regularly to argue the case for treating Hong Kong differently from, say, Shenzhen and Shanghai. But if you appear to be regarding Hong Kong from Beijing as though it was just another China city, then sooner or later, economic governments around the world, businesses around the world, when they’re looking even at things like the Belt and Road Initiative, they’re going to regard Hong Kong as just another part of China, and that would be really bad for the standard of living, for the quality of life in Hong Kong!

Above all, of course, if we go ahead, if the government goes ahead with this extradition agreement, it will cause unnecessary worries and anxieties in Hong Kong. That’s a really bad thing. I hope that even at this late stage, the government will back off and leave well alone. It doesn’t have to happen, it shouldn’t happen, and Hong Kong should carry on as a free society, under the rule of law, without having to worry about this extradition.

前港督彭定康錄影講話翻譯

我知道這星期在香港，成千上萬的人將會到街上遊行表達自己的意見，反對政府所提出將會容許引渡到中國的引渡修例建議。這是一項，或者應該說是一系列我及國際社會認為將會對香港的法治、香港的穩定和社會安全造成很大打擊的建議，它將會嚴重傷害香港作為一個國際貿易中心的地位。令人驚訝的是，香港政府似乎並不理解這一點。這確實令人懷疑這些日子究竟是誰在管治香港：是香港政府還是代表北京共產黨政權的中聯辦？

為甚麼這修例是這麼重要？這是近年來發生的一系列容許北京強行控制香港的事件之一，而這一直以來都讓人深感憂慮。我覺得在1997年之後的十年至十幾年，香港的情況進展尚算順利。當然，是本來可以更好，我很遺憾北京扼殺了香港民主的發展，違背了之前所作出的承諾。但總的來說，香港在那個時候仍然是一個非常自由和成功的社會。

但是，自北京政權開始推翻鄧小平的改革以及在江澤民、朱熔基、胡錦濤和溫家寶時期所推行的發展以後，共產黨控制着一切，打擊持不同政見的人，打擊人權，在新疆把人民關押等等。從那時起，我們就知道北京一直在試圖加緊控制香港。我認為最新的引渡建議就是一個例子。

現在香港政府提出了許多非常虛假的論點，它說目前的情況是展現了一個需要填補的「洞」，這絕對是胡說八道。大家多年來都確切地清楚知道不應該與中國達成引渡協議的原因。而政府提出的許多論點實際上也沒有一個不令你拍案大笑。政府認為制定引渡條約比從香港非法綁架人民更好，你認真覺得人們應該相信這個說法嗎？

當然他們又會說歐洲的西方民主國家與中國已經簽訂了引渡協議，但它們與香港根本處於完全不同的地位。國際商會、律師、商人及各國政府之所以提出反對意見的原因非常簡單：因為這些修例將會摧毀香港法治與中國共產黨的法治概念之間的防火牆。中國的法律觀念不包括任何獨立的法院，並把法院、國安部門以及黨的規則 （黨規則亦有時相當模糊）完全混在一起。這就是為甚麼我們最近看到被關起來的加拿大公民被用為人質，反對加拿大本身在她自己國家的法治下所發生的事情。因此，人們如此擔心這修例所帶來的影響並不奇怪。

我知道當人們都正在談到與台灣有關的問題之際，過去幾年的香港大律師公會領導人，應該是有十幾位，都已經提出意見，說明你如何就着香港現行的普通法來處理這個問題。

這些修例對香港不利，我認為這些修例所引發的疑問是甚至政府都沒有仔細考慮過的，尤其是對香港經濟重要性和經濟穩定性的影響。我們非常清楚在經濟和商業方面是需要把香港與中國其他地區分開對待。很久以前，當我還是港督的時候，我經常前往華盛頓游說對方看待香港的時候要跟對待深圳和上海之類的中國城市有所不同。但是如果以北京的角度看香港，將香港當為另一個普通中國城市，那麼世界各地的政府及企業將會視香港為中國的一部分（而不是特區），就算是看待「一帶一路」之類倡議時亦會是如此。這對香港的生活水平和生活質素都是非常不利的！

當然，最重要的是如果香港政府繼續硬推這些引渡修例，這將會在香港引起不必要的憂慮和焦慮。這些都是非常糟糕的事情。我希望即使在這個最後階段，政府仍然可以退讓，撤回方案，不要再添亂。這修例不需要通過，亦不應該通過，香港應該繼續是一個有法治、有自由的社會，而不應該面對這些令人憂心的引渡修例。