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
133
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
Allmammalshavehair,butnotalwaysevident.
IntheUnitedStatesandinmanyothercountriesaroundtheworld,therearefourmainwaysforpeopletobe【C1】______aboutdeve
Thephotoperiodicresponseofalgaeactuallydependsonthedurationofdarkness,butnotontheresponseoflight.
"IfIworkednotwithmyhusband,Iwouldhavenevermethim,"writesJodster.
当前,亚欧两地区都处于蓬勃发展的阶段。亚洲是世界上最具经济活力的地区,资源丰富,市场广阔,区域合作方兴未艾。欧盟是世界上最大的发达经济体,资本充裕,科技先进,一体化程度高。两地区政治上共识很多,经济上优势互补,文化上各具特色,为开展更广泛和具有实质性的对话
北京奥运会不仅将展示新的激动人心的中国文化,也将体现北京独特的个性与技巧。北京也认为,应从奥林匹克运动中通过广泛咨询,得到技术上的建议。在准备这份报告时,我们咨询了来自悉尼、亚特兰大、巴塞罗那的专家。协商和对话是我们工作的原则。//再次申办以来,
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
下面你将听到一段有关人口老龄化问题的讲话。
A、USB、FranceC、GermanyD、BritainB根据选项特点,注意掌握原文中某些专有名词的信息。本题中要求掌握国名信息。
A、migrantworkersB、povertyreductionC、remittancesD、LatinAmericaC本题是主旨题。要求考生准确把握文章的关键词。很显然,本篇文章讲的就是侨汇问题,:所以选项c是正确答案。
随机试题
下列有关教师聘任的叙述正确的是()
Abouttwentyofushadbeenfortunateenoughtoreceiveinvitationtoafilmstudio(摄影机)totakepartinacrowd-scene.Althoug
Weshouldbearinmindthat"It’seasier______thantodo."
治疗瘀血阻络型胁痛,可选用
A.X线颅骨平片见蝶鞍扩大,蝶底变薄B.X线颅骨平片见蝶鞍不大,无钙化影C.X线颅骨平片见蝶鞍不大,鞍区点片状钙化D.X线颅骨平片见蝶区广泛骨破坏,并累及斜坡结节状钙化斑E.X线颅骨平片见蝶底骨质增厚,蝶鞍呈“球”形鞍结节脑膜瘤
姜片虫又称作
轻型井点布置中()适用于基坑宽度大于6m或土质不良的情况。
银行存款利息所得属于财产性收入。()
控制面板有什么用途?
Thetravelerswere_____intosilencebytheSightofadistantmountain.
最新回复
(
0
)