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 talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack ea
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack ea
admin
2016-01-30
47
问题
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, 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 favors 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 consensual. 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 practiced 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 to so ingrained that "compromise" has become a dirty word. We feel quality 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.
The author thinks that harsh words are appropriate in the following situations EXCEPT
选项
A、when you see something unfair
B、when you are annoyed at someone’s extremely foolish behavior
C、when you are enough with an arrogant person
D、when you are in disagreement with your colleagues
答案
D
解析
细节判断题。根据关键词harsh words定位到原文第五段第二句中的冒号后和尾句,这两处表明了在witness injustice,feel passionately about another’s folly和bring down a tyrant than to mock himmercilessly情况下可以使用harsh words,对照选项,只有选项D不属于其中的情况。故答案为D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/ShGO777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
Whatdoconsumersreallywant?That’saquestionmarketresearcherswouldlovetoanswer.Butsincepeopledon’talwayssaywhat
(复旦大学2009年试题)Hereisagreatironyof21st-centuryglobalpublichealth;Whilemanyhundredsofmillionsofpeoplelackade
(中国矿业大学2006年试题)Generally,acomputerisanydevicethatcanperformnumericalcalculations.Currently,【1】,thetermusually
(北京大学2006年试题)Anyparentwithachild【1】theagesof3and11cantellyou【2】technologyhascreptintonearly【3】aspectsofpl
(北京大学2006年试题)LastyearFrenchdriverskilled【1】than5,000peopleontheroadsforthefirsttimeindecades.Creditgoesla
(浙江大学2010年试题)ThecharacterofEuropeaneducationdemandsthatthestudentdevelop【1】andsocialindividuality.TheAmerican
Somecultureshavecustomsthat______theclothingfashionsofpeopleincertainsocialclasses.
"Twohundredeightmillion,twohundredninemillion,twohundredtenmillion..."Thatisthesoundofsolidwastehittingthe
Ifyouwanttosetupacompany,youmust______withtheregulationslaiddownbytheauthorities.
Ifyouareafanofsciencefiction,you’venodoubtencounteredthetermnanotechnology,Yetoverthepastyearalso,aseries
随机试题
如果尽可能多的包装都用垃圾场里可生物降解的材料来制造的话,这将对环境更加有益。因此,用在垃圾场不可生物降解的塑料制造的包装来取代用纸或纸板制造的包装,总是一个更糟的变化。以下哪一项如果正确。将构成对上面论述的最强烈的反对?
八脉交会穴中,与阴维脉相通的是
自助行为
工程项目质量的内涵,从功能和使用价值来看,包括( )等方面。
下列关于工作满意度的陈述。正确的是()。
下列有关证券市场线的表述正确的有()。
在某些情况通报的写作中,出于对行文对象的尊重,也表现出对社会现象的理解和态度的严肃认真,我们有时把“贫困”说成“低收入”,把“政治问题”说成“热点问题”,把“失业”说成“下岗待业”。这实际上使用的是()。
请分别解释有效市场假说的三种形态。[天津大学2016金融硕士;厦门大学2017金融硕士;华南理工大学2011金融硕士]
TrafficisaperennialprobleminHongkong.Overtheyearsmanysuggestionshavebeen【C1】______toeasetransportdifficulties.T
WhatisthepercentageofalltheadultswhoarenowHIV-positiveinBotswana?
最新回复
(
0
)