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
46
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
Lackgovernmentsupport,theyhadtoapproachsponsors,organizers,andmusiciansontheirown—atfirst,sheclaims,inhercoun
Exportofhandicraftproductsisthemainstayofthecounty’seconomy.
Theamazingsuccessofhumansasa【C1】______istheresultoftheevolutionarydevelopmentofourbrainswhichhasled,amongoth
TheSocialSecurityActdidnotincludehealthinsurancebecausethecommissionconsideredthatitsinclusionwouldjeopardizet
InterpersonalRelationshipsInthelast25yearswehavewitnessedanimpressivegrowthinourknowledgeaboutemotionsande
SexualReproductionBirdsdoit.Beesdoit.Butdandelionsdon’t.Theprodigiousspreadofthesewinsomeweedsunderscoresa
下面你将听到外国媒体就中国艾滋病问题的一段评论。HIV/AIDSisnowrecognizedclearlyasagrowingthreattoChina.AccordingtoofficialChineseesti
美国人认为没有一个人是一成不变的,不进则退。这种观念使得整个民族都致力于研究、实验和探索。
道琼斯指数主要用于对纽约证券交易所的股票行情涨跌进行衡量与报道。
在改革开放的伟大实践中,我们深刻认识到。在当今世界日趋激烈的竞争中,一个国家、一个民族要发展起来,就必须与时俱进、改革开放、着力发展、以人为本、促进和谐。世界上没有放之四海而皆准的发展道路和发展模式,也没有一成不变的发展道路和发展模式,必须适应国内外形势
随机试题
设计一台电动机按要求动作的PLC控制系统。具体要求:系统只有一个按钮。按一下,电动机正转10s再反转10s后自动停止。试完成设计任务:(1)列出PLC系统资源分配表。(2)画出梯形图。(3)写出对应的助记符指令程序。
锌缺乏患儿的血清锌浓度低于
女性,28岁,怀孕6个月,右下肢静脉曲张,应首先实施怎样治疗措施最适合
货币市场是融资期限在()的金融市场。
会计主体所核算的生产经营活动也包括其他企业或投资者个人的其他生产经营活动。()
创造性思维的核心成分是()。
曹操占据“天时”的重要举措是()。
结合材料回答问题:材料1 中国始终将周边置于外交全局的首要位置,视促进周边和平、稳定、发展为己任。中国推动全球治理体系朝着更加公正合理方向发展,推动国际关系民主化,推动建立以合作共赢为核心的新型国际关系,推动建设人类命运共同体,都是从周边先行起步。
下面关于文件叙述中错误的是( )。
下列关于期转现交易的优越性的说法中,正确的有()。
最新回复
(
0
)