素材摘抄篇一：素材摘抄

教授打人 誰都沒有豁免權(quán)

北航教授韓德強，就因為和一位老人爭論愛國問題時，一言不合兩記耳光扇在老人臉上，引來一陣口水互噴。一言不合，扇人耳光，這是連罵街潑婦都不屑干的蠻夫之舉。它表面上是斯文掃地實際上是對法律的嘲諷是對民主的羞辱。用耳光強迫別人遵從自己的信仰與崇尚，表面上是站在愛國的高地，實際上是身處道德的低洼而不自知。

路口拐點，人性拐點

參加保釣游行的李昭在發(fā)現(xiàn)游行人群瘋狂地打砸日系車后，手持一塊紙板站在路口。紙板上寫著“前方砸車，日系掉頭”。

西安接口的那個“拐點”——市民的日系車經(jīng)提醒后掉頭，避免被砸毀，也描摹著李昭內(nèi)心的“拐點”——從興奮地參加愛國游行，專為關(guān)切同胞的財產(chǎn)與人身安全，他身上表現(xiàn)出的理智與良善，構(gòu)成了社會的基石，構(gòu)成足以對抗社會狂熱與丑惡的“拐點”。

素材摘抄篇二：寫作課素材(大英百科全書摘抄)

Effects of television viewing on child development

ARTICLE from the Encyclop?dia Britannica

Effects of television viewing on child development, highly contested topic within child development and psychology involving the consequences for children from the content of and the duration of their exposure to television (TV) programming. The effects of television viewing on child development have aroused a range of reactions from researchers, parents, and politicians that has fueled a debate that extends back to the medium’s inception in the 1940s.

It is difficult to argue that youths are not affected by what is broadcast on television. However, it is equally difficult to pinpoint particular shows or gees of programming as causing specific behaviours in children without considering the innumerable amount of alternate influences that may have an effect on their actions. Some have argued that television clearly has negative effects on youths—such as violent programming resulting in children who are more fearful, more aggressive, or more insensitive to the suffering of

others—whereas others believe that such effects are, at best, ambiguous. Although it is uncertain which perspective is right or wrong, it is quite certain that the debate continues to galvanize social scientists, parents, and politicians in the United States and elsewhere.

Early findings

As commercial television began to flourish in the United States in the 1940s, television’s effects on the first generation of individuals raised

alongside the new medium became a topic of interest. In 1949 the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) sponsored a study conducted by Rutgers

University that found that television increased family unity and cohesion, did not promote viewer passivity, and did not replace other valued diversions, such as outdoor activities and social interactions. That landmark report was one of the first and most widely disseminated of its kind, and several more would

follow in the forthcoming decade. Soon, however, questions were raised about whether television viewing decreased dialogue between children and parents and whether children could be expected to maintain academic progress as their average total viewing time increased to more than 20 hours a week. Eventually, broadcasters capitalized upon those youthful watchers by

developing targeted programs such as puppet shows and Saturday morning cartoons. Although those were highly popular, many children—especially those from households that provided minimal parental involvement in viewing choices—were also watching wrestling shows, TV westerns, and

mystery-crime dramas, all of which incorporated a significant amount of

violence into their story lines. That, in turn, raised even more concerns about the impact of television on American youth.

Effects of television violence

In several studies in the 1960s and ’70s, American psychologist Albert Bandura found that children learn from and imitate the behaviour of individuals they observe, specifically when the individual is rewarded for aggressive acts. That finding corroborated the admonitions of those who suggested that children who constantly witnessed their favorite TV “heroes” being praised for beating up or killing the “bad guy” would, in turn, incorporate aggressive acts into their own repertoire of behaviours for use in situations characterized by conflict. Throughout the following decades, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, and other social scientists have argued a number of different perspectives with respect to whether television violence facilitates or triggers violent behaviours in children. Some believe that watching violence on television likely causes a significant number of children to behave violently. Others have agreed that this may be true but that it is so only with children already susceptible to exhibiting violence. As a result, some have argued for tighter controls, either voluntary or legislative, concerning what should be allowed on the airwaves. Alternately, some have blamed parents instead of the broadcast industry and contended that parents are ultimately to blame for their children’s viewing habits. A general point of agreement (or compromise) among the research community is that television can have effects on children’s

behaviour but that it must be considered as one of many determinants that may cause a child to act in a particular manner.

Other potential effects

The debate of whether violence on television begets violence in children may be the most-salient issue, but some social scientists argue that television programming has negative effects on children beyond promoting aggressive behaviour. For example, television shows appear to perpetuate gender and racial stereotypes and offer young viewers a distorted perspective of how the world works and how people behave. Several studies have correlated television with deficits in attention and focus and have revealed negative correlations between test scores and the number of hours of programming watched. In addition, parents have complained about the content of certain shows, contending that even the most “child-friendly” programming may present values (especially those regarding sex, alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use) that contradict those they wish to pass on to their offspring.

Health care professionals have also weighed in on the television debate. They believe that children who spend more time watching television are going to spend less time engaging in physical activity. That trend, combined with the ubiquity of fast-food advertisements during such programs, may be largely responsible for America’s obesity epidemic. Additionally, psychologists argue

that the large amount of time spent watching TV threatens the cohesiveness of the family. Such negative effects may also include inhibiting children’s social development by diminishing the number of conversations between them and their family members.

Despite all the negative influences attributed to television, some

commentators note that the medium can have a positive effect on youths. For instance, television programs are quite commonly used in school classrooms, and teachers may use educational videos or segments recorded from network broadcasts to accentuate their lessons and provide learning avenues for

children with different learning styles. Also, television has exposed people to a wider array of cultures and societies and has made more young people aware of political and social issues, which in turn may increase their influence on their respective nation’s government.

Policy issues

Because of the television-viewing habits of youths, some legislators have advocated for stricter regulation of what is shown on TV. In the United States in 1996, Congress mandated that V-chips, devices that parents can use to block programming inappropriate for children, be installed in every television set produced after 1999. In 1997 the entertainment industry, pressured by Congress to enact a ratings system to work in conjunction with the V-chip,

素材摘抄篇三：[文章素材]200字精美語段摘抄

[文章素材]200字精美語段摘抄

生命的幸福原來不在于人的環(huán)境、人的地位、人所能享受的物質(zhì)，而在于人的心靈如何與生活對應(yīng)。因此，幸福不是由外在事物決定的，貧困者有貧困者的幸福，富有者有其幸福，位尊權(quán)貴者有其幸福，身份卑微者也自有其幸福。在生命里，人人都是有笑有淚；在生活中，人人都有幸福與憂惱，這是人間世界真實的相貌。

死亡、疾病、傷害、不公平……這些早已存在。而且，以它們?yōu)槊�義的戲劇，正時時刻刻在這個世界上演。一些令人傷心或憤慨的故事，也曾經(jīng)使我們悲哀落淚，但不久就被拋到九霄云外；一些丑惡的現(xiàn)象。也曾經(jīng)讓我們義憤填膺，但很快又讓位于別的什么令人激動的事情。這一切的一切，只不過是因為，它們發(fā)生在別人身上，離“我的世界”實在太遠；我們的感情于是在空氣中冷卻．凝固，墜落!你在

那遙遠的城市，那于我遙遠而陌生的城市，那我即便站在高山之巔也無法眺望的城市。我常想著你，我的朋友。

愛恨是玻璃板上的兩滴水；有時混在一起；分不出彼此；有時經(jīng)過時

間的蒸發(fā)；全不見了。

傍晚下起了雪，然后一夜未停。雪花輕柔，落在一只只黑漆斑駁的蜂箱上。蜜蜂正沉睡。在精致的六角的蜂巢內(nèi)，像被蠟封的秘函。又像提煉完畢的純金顆粒，被一位豐富的君王所珍藏。其實比金子更貴重，因為蜜蜂是活物，有生命。天底下，它們的夢境最甜美，南方的紫云英、油菜花，北方的槐花、棗花、山荊柯，一層謝了一層又開。卻不知今夜繁華的夢鄉(xiāng)，是否能出現(xiàn)雪的蹤影。如果有一只可愛的蜜蜂在雪的拍打聲中悄然醒來，會聞到一縷來自蒼穹的清香，圣潔而神奇�？上�沒有誰能幸運地復(fù)蘇，塵世的花朵，已經(jīng)把它們累壞了。

卜算子蘇東坡 缺月掛疏桐；漏斷人初靜。誰見幽人獨住來？飄渺孤鴻影。驚起卻回頭；有恨無人省。揀盡寒枝不肯棲；寂寞沙洲冷。 正是這種難言的孤獨；使他徹底洗去了人生的喧嘩；去尋找無言的山水；去尋找遠逝的古人。在無法對話的地方尋找對話；于是對話也一定變得異乎尋常；像蘇東坡這樣的靈魂竟然寂然無聲；那么；遲早總會突然冒出一種宏大的奇跡；讓這個世界大吃一驚。 寂寞；使蘇東坡經(jīng)歷了一次整體意義上的脫胎換骨；也是使他的藝術(shù)才能獲得了一次蒸

餾和升華。他；真正成熟了----和古今往來往來許多大家一樣；成書于一場災(zāi)難之后；成熟于滅寂后的重生；成熟與窮鄉(xiāng)僻壤；成熟與幾乎沒有人在他身邊的時刻。 成熟是一種明亮而不刺眼的光芒；一種圓潤而不膩耳的音響；一種不再需要對別人察言觀色的從容；一種終于停止了向四周申訴求告的大氣；一種不理會喧鬧的微笑；一種洗刷了偏激的淡漠；一種無需聲張的厚實；一種并不陡峭的高度；勃郁的豪情發(fā)過了酵；尖利的山風(fēng)收住了近；湍急的細流匯成了湖。

當(dāng)愛像明媚的陽光一樣照徹寒冷的心房時，我們會發(fā)現(xiàn)，愛的本身就是一波震顫的弦音，一種花香的彌散，持久，熱烈，而又延己及人．從一雙手到另一雙手，從一個人到另一個人。這是從施愛者靈魂深處飄散出來的溫暖，它蘇醒著精神世界中一行疲憊的足跡、一顆受了冷漠的心靈，然后，得了愛的人會在自己的心田擦亮火柴般地用一份溫暖．去照耀另一顆心，盡管有時是那么微弱。

當(dāng)愛像明媚的陽光一樣照徹寒冷的心房時，我們會發(fā)現(xiàn)，愛的本身就

是一波震顫的弦音，一種花香的彌散，持久，熱烈，而又延己及人．從一雙手到另一雙手，從一個人到另一個人。這是從施愛者靈魂深處飄散出來的溫暖，它蘇醒著精神世界中一行疲憊的足跡、一顆受了冷漠的心靈，然后，得了愛的人會在自己的心田擦亮火柴般地用一份溫暖．去照耀另一顆心，盡管有時是那么微弱。

當(dāng)歡笑淡成沉默；當(dāng)信心變成失落；我走近夢想的腳步；是否依舊堅定執(zhí)著；當(dāng)笑顏流失在心的沙漠；當(dāng)霜雪冰封了親情承諾；我無奈的心中；是否依然碧綠鮮活。有誰不渴望收獲；有誰沒有過苦澀；有誰不希望生命的枝頭掛滿豐碩；有誰愿意讓希望變成夢中的花朵�，F(xiàn)實和理想之間；不變的是跋涉；暗淡與輝煌之間；不變的是開拓。甩掉世俗的羈絆；沒誰愿意；讓一生在碌碌無為中度過。整理你的行裝；不同的起點；可以達到同樣輝煌的終點。人生沒有對錯；成功永遠屬于奮斗者。

當(dāng)簡愛說："我們是平等的；我不是無感情的機器"；我懂得了作為女性的自尊；當(dāng)裴多菲說："若為自由故；兩者皆可拋"；我懂得了作為

人的價值；當(dāng)魯迅說："不在沉默中爆發(fā)；就在沉默中滅亡"；我懂得人應(yīng)具有反抗精神；當(dāng)白朗寧說："拿走愛；世界將變成一座墳?zāi)?quot;；我懂得了為他人奉獻愛心的重要。

寂寞的嚴冬里，到處是單調(diào)的枯黃色．四處一片蕭瑟，連往日明凈的小河也失去了光彩，黯然無神地躲在冰面下懨懨欲睡。有母女倆，在散發(fā)著絲絲暖意的陽光．下，母親在為女兒梳頭。她溫和的把頭發(fā)理順．又輕柔的一縷縷編織著麻花辮。她臉上寫滿笑意，似乎滿心的慈愛永遠裝不下，溢到嘴邊．流到眼角，紡織進長長的．麻花辮。陽光親吻著長發(fā)，像散上了金粉，閃著飄忽的光輝。女兒乖巧地依偎在母親懷里，不停地說著什么，不時把母親逗出會心的微笑，甜美的親情融化了冬的寒冷，使蕭索的冬景旋轉(zhuǎn)出春天的美麗。

簡言之；幸福就是沒有痛苦的時刻。他出現(xiàn)的頻率并不比我們想象的少；人們常常只是在幸福的金馬車駛過去很遠時；撿起地上的金鬃毛說；原來我見過它。 人們喜歡會為幸福的標(biāo)本；卻忽略了幸福披著露水散發(fā)清香的時刻。那時候我們往往步履匆匆；瞻前顧后；不知在忙些什么。世上有人預(yù)報臺風(fēng)；有人預(yù)報蝗蟲；有人預(yù)報瘟疫；有人

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：摘抄 素材 議論文人物素材摘抄 語文素材摘抄