首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talkshow, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack eac
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talkshow, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack eac
admin
2011-01-10
57
问题
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talkshow, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack each other- hurl insults, even- and it counts as logical argument. I cannot understand it.
It seems that our society favours a kind of ritualized aggression. Everywhere you look, in newspapers and on television, issues are presented using the terminology of war and conflict. We hear of battles, duels and disputes. We see things in terms of winners and losers, victors and victims.
The problem is society’s unquestioning belief in the advantages of the debate as a way of solving disagreements, even proving right from wrong. Our brainwashing begins early at school, when the brightest pupils are co-opted onto the debating system. They get there because they can think up a good argument to support their case. Once on the debate team, they learn that they earn bonus points for the skill with which they verbally attack, or insult, the opposing team. They win if they can successfully convince the audience that they are right, even if the case they are arguing is clearly nonsensual. They do this by proving themselves to be stronger, brighter, more outrageous, even.
The training in this adversarial approach continues at our tertiary institutions. The standard way to present an academic paper, for instance, is to take up an opposing argument to something expressed by another academic. The paper must set out to prove the other person wrong. This is not at all the same thing as reading the original paper with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it.
The reverence for the adversarial approach spills over into all areas of life. Instead of answering their critics, politicians learn to sidestep negative comments and turn the point around to an attack on accusers. Defense lawyers argue the case for their clients even when they suspect they may be guilty. And ordinary people use the same tactics—just listen to your teenager next time you pull him up for coming home late. You can be sure a stream of abuse will flow about your own time—keeping, your irritating habits, your history of bad parenting.
Unfortunately, the smarter your kid, the better his or her argument against you will be. You’ll be upset, but you’ll comfort yourself that those teenage monsters of yours will one day turn into mature, though adults who can look after themselves—by which you mean, of course, they will be able to argue their way out of sticky situations.
It’s not that you should never use angry words, or take up a position in opposition to someone or something. There are certainly times when one should take a stand, and in such cases strong words are quite appropriate: if you witness injustice, for instance, or feel passionately about another’s folly. Mockery—so cruel when practised on the innocent—can be very useful in such situations. There is no better way to bring down a tyrant than to mock him mercilessly.
What I dislike is the automatic assumption most people have when it comes to disagreements: they should attack, abuse, preferably overpower their opponent, at whatever the cost. The approach is so ingrained that "compromise" has become a dirty word. We feel guilty if we are conciliatory rather than confrontational. We have trained ourselves, or been brainwashed into believing, that to be pleasant is a sign of weakness.
But just think how easy it can be to persuade a "difficult" person to be considerate of you or your wished when you are pleasant to them, and unthreatening. Give them a way out of a potentially aggressive situation without losing face, and they will oblige you willingly.
Discuss a subject without taking an adversarial position and you will find the other person happy to explore the possibilities with you. I’m prepared to bet on it. You’ll get closer to the truth of the matter than you would by going to each other hammer and tongs.
At the end of the passage "going at each other hammer and tongs" means______.
选项
A、attacking or abusing stealthily
B、mocking or scoffing with tongs
C、compromising or consulting with a hammer
D、quarrelling or fighting noisily
答案
A
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/5TcO777K
本试题收录于:
NAETI中级口译笔试题库外语翻译证书(NAETI)分类
0
NAETI中级口译笔试
外语翻译证书(NAETI)
相关试题推荐
Evidencecameupwhichspecificspeechsoundsarerecognizedbybabiesasyoungas6monthsold.
Icannotthankyou______muchforyourkindness,forIowemysuccesstoyou.
IntheUnitedStatesandinmanyothercountriesaroundtheworld,therearefourmainwaysforpeopletobe【C1】______aboutdeve
ItwasnotlongbeforeSkinners,thefamousbehaviorist,realizedthelimitationsofhispsychologicalresearchthananotherpsy
Thelaserrepresentsatruemarriagebetweenscienceandtechnology,themenwhodeviseditwere______engineersandphysicists.
OurproductsaredisplayedinStandB22,______youwillfindmeduringofficehours.
Inthelast10yearswehaveallwitnessedanimpressivegrowthinourknowledgeabouttheenvironment.
Networktelevision,magazine,anddirectmail—thatwillbethebiggainersinadvertisingrevenuesnextyear.
党的十一届三中全会以来,随着党和国家工作重点转移到以经济建设为中心,教育在社会主义现代化建设中的地位和作用也越来越重要,我国教育的改革和发展取得了很大的成就。进入20世纪90年代,科学技术日新月异,知识经济初见端倪,综合国力竞争日趋激烈,我国社会
纽约市是美国最大的城市,约有1100万的人口居住在纽约市及其郊区。纽约市主要分布在哈得逊河入海口的三个岛屿上。纽约市中心及许多著名景观都坐落于曼哈顿岛。一些世界最著名的摩天大楼矗立在纽约市的大街上。第五大街是著名的商业街,而百老汇则因剧院而闻名。或许纽约市
随机试题
婴儿开始添加淀粉类食物的年龄是
[2006年,第64题]图5.2-4示桁架,在节点C处沿水平方向受力F作用。各杆的抗拉刚度相等。若结点C的铅垂位移以VC表示,BC杆的轴力以FNBC表示,则()。
根据《建筑地基基础设计规范》,岩石地基承载力特征值的确定,下列()不符合规范规定。
按监理形式划分,设备监理方式中不包括()。
“天下大势,分久必合,合久必分”,这一名断在封建社会的中国是适用的,原因在于另一著名规律:政治、经济发展的不平衡。虽然从整个封建史来看,统一是主流,分裂动乱是例外,但分裂的存在是必然的,也是整个封建国家政治机构所无法克服的。由于自然经济是社会的主流经济形态
推进惩治和预防腐败体系建设,要在坚决惩治腐败的同时,(),拓展从源头上防治腐败工作领域。
文艺复兴时期,第一个提出“教育与环境”的观点的教育家是()。
只要诊治准确并且抢救及时,这个病人就不会死亡。现在,这个病人不幸死亡了。如果上述断定是真的,则以下哪项也一定是真的?
[*]
Thecourseofhistoryisneversmooth.Itissometimesbesetwithdifficultiesandobstaclesandnothingshortofaheroicspiri
最新回复
(
0
)