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
47
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
Japanandthenewlyindustrializedcountriesarepassinglabor-intensivesectsasgarment-makingovertolessdevelopednations
Partiesarethereforefreetostriveforasettlementwithoutjeopardizingtheirchancesfororinatrialifmediationisunsuc
IntheUnitedStatesandinmanyothercountriesaroundtheworld,therearefourmainwaysforpeopletobe【C1】______aboutdeve
IntheUnitedStatesandinmanyothercountriesaroundtheworld,therearefourmainwaysforpeopletobe【C1】______aboutdeve
Theamazingsuccessofhumansasa【C1】______istheresultoftheevolutionarydevelopmentofourbrainswhichhasled,amongoth
Thetrafficpolicestoppedthreetrucksheavilyloadingwithmerchandisethatlookedasgrainbags.
Researchersallovertheworldhavebeenseekingfordetermininghowearlyinfancyconceptualthinkingispossible.
Manystudentsagreedtocome,butsomestudentsagainstbecausetheysaidtheydon’thavetime.
海洋是全球生命支持系统的一个不可缺少的组成部分。海洋不仅是自然资源的宝库,同时也是我们人类居住环境的重要调节器。中国政府高度重视海洋的开发和保护,不断加强海洋综合管理,促进海洋产业的协调发展。中国已经形成了具有区域特征的多学科的海洋科学体系。国家
全纽约市的地铁和公交工人继续罢工。对于上班族而言,又要面临艰难的一天,考虑如何才能方便出行。纽约市官员担心会有很多人开车进城,会造成严重交通阻塞。因此,早晨期间,凡乘员少于四人的车辆都将不得进入曼哈顿部分区域。官员们警告说,纽约市的经济可能受到重创。纽约市
随机试题
患儿男性,生后30分钟,因“重度窒息复苏后”入院。患儿G3P2,胎龄38+4周阴道顺产,出生体重2960g,生后全身皮肤紫,无呼吸,心率<100次/min,四肢肌张力低,刺激后无反应,Apgar评分1分钟2分,即予清理呼吸道后,气管插管球囊加压给氧,胸外心
A.淋巴道播散B.血道播散C.二者皆有D.二者皆无原发性肺结核的常见播散方式是
A.鳞癌B.腺癌C.小细胞未分化癌D.大细胞未分化癌E.细支气管肺泡癌肺癌最常见的病理类型是
人工流产后感染,其中医治法
一辆汽车在笔直的公路上行驶,两次拐弯后,仍在原来方向上平行前进,那么,这两次拐弯的角度可能是?()
简述侦查监督的内容。
周朝的“三公”是()、太傅和太保的统称。
根据下列材料回答问题根据图二、三,可以推断出()。
张某为元旦晚会创作了一个小品。依照著作权法,张某取得该小品著作权的时间为()。
给定程序中,函数fun的功能是:将形参给定的字符串、整数、浮点数写到文本文件中,再用字符方式从此文本文件中逐个读入并显示在终端屏幕上。请在程序的下画线处填入正确的内容并把下画线删除,使程序得出正确的结果。注意:部分源程序给出如下。
最新回复
(
0
)