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
41
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.
The writer’s main point is______.
选项
A、compromising
B、no debating
C、discussing
D、no fighting
答案
C
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/fTcO777K
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
Yourpersonalinformationiseverywhere—processedandmanipulated,storedandsold.Butfewpeoplereallyknowwhatisgoingon
ThetwopsychologistshadtomodifytheAmericanSignLanguagesomewhatinordertoaccommodatethechimpanzees’spontaneousges
Thepresidentexplainedthatthepurposeoftaxationwasto______governmentspending.
Itisknowntoallthatchildreninthisregionhavestrong______toswimminginsummerbecauseofthehotweather.
Daylightsavingtimewasinstitutedtoincreaseproductivity.
Thedichotomypostulatedbymanybetweenidealismandrealismisoneofthestandardclichesoftheongoingdebateoverinternat
InterpersonalRelationshipsInthelast25yearswehavewitnessedanimpressivegrowthinourknowledgeaboutemotionsande
1986年全国人大常委会副委员长班禅喇嘛在西康地区大法会上教诲信徒们,要爱惜民族团结,维护祖国统一。在中国,公民的信仰自由受到法律保护。目前全西藏在寺僧尼约有14,000多人,另有800位宗教界人士在各级人大、政协、佛教协会和政府部门中工作。
女士们、先生们:我非常高兴能利用英中贸协年会的机会向英国工商界朋友们致以诚挚的问候。多年来,英中贸协一直关心和支持中英关系发展,是堪称两国友好交流的桥梁和互利合作的纽带。在此,我谨对英中贸协及诸位长期为促进中英经贸合作所做的不懈努力和杰出贡献表示
西藏森林面积717万公顷,活立木蓄积量达20.91亿立方米,保存有中国最大的原始森林。为了保护西藏的生态环境,政府实行限额采伐,以严格控制森林的采伐规模,每年的商品性采伐量一直控制在15万立方米以内。//同时,对采伐基地进行及时更新,恢复森林植被。在影响长
随机试题
血液透析过程中,护士应当注意()
等离子切割的工艺参数主要有()。
在室内装饰装修过程中,属于集中荷载的有()。
目前各级政府部门明令施工企业用工必须加强管理的重点对象是()。
人员疏散分析常用的模型有()。
阅读下面材料,回答问题。“乘法”练习课上,吴老师用投影仪出示了一道开放性练习题:“3位老师带50名学生去参观植物园,票价分别是:成人每人10元、学生每人5元、团体(10人以上)每人6元,怎样买最合算?”很快,很多同学给出了答案:老师和学生分开来买,
【背景材料】六十多年前,在夺取全国胜利的前夕,具有重大历史意义的党的七届二中全会在西柏坡召开。毛泽东同志高瞻远瞩地告诫全党:“务必使同志们继续地保持谦虚谨慎、不骄不躁的作风,务必使同志们继续地保持艰苦奋斗的作风。”从此,以“两个务必”为核心的“西柏坡精神
TheGradePointSystemofSchoolintheUnitedStatesNaperville’sschoolofficialsrecentlyvotedtostopusingaclassran
TheNationalGeographicChannelisoftenpraisedforitsmeticuloussciencedocumentaries,butashowthatairedlastmonthfocu
DerVaterhat______Frau.
最新回复
(
0
)