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
37
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 style of this passage is______.
选项
A、descriptive
B、narrative
C、expositive
D、argumentative
答案
B
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/rTcO777K
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
Forthesuccessoftheproject,thecompanyshould______themostoftheopportunitiesathand.
Doctoroften______uneasinessinthepeopletheydealwith.
IntheUnitedStatesandinmanyothercountriesaroundtheworld,therearefourmainwaysforpeopletobe【C1】______aboutdeve
Itisknowntoallthatchildreninthisregionhavestrong______toswimminginsummerbecauseofthehotweather.
Justlastweek,forexample,theWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)announcedthedisturbingdisclosurethatchickflumaybepretty
Idon’tthinkyoucanpersuadehim;healways______tohisownprinciples.
下面你将听到一段有关人口老龄化问题的讲话。
A、Indifferent.B、Intimate.C、Cooperative.D、Disappointing.C根据题干要求在原文中找寻关于公园与毗邻的土地所有者之间关系的信息。原文第二段第四句有明确说法“Voluntaryactionbyl
A、About23years.B、About27years.C、About30years.D、About13years.A根据第二段第一句“...constructionscheduledtostartin2007and
纽约市是美国最大的城市,约有1100万的人口居住在纽约市及其郊区。纽约市主要分布在哈得逊河入海口的三个岛屿上。纽约市中心及许多著名景观都坐落于曼哈顿岛。一些世界最著名的摩天大楼矗立在纽约市的大街上。第五大街是著名的商业街,而百老汇则因剧院而闻名。或许纽约市
随机试题
(2013年)企业在制定未来的发展战略时,可选择的外部宏观环境分析方法是()。
A.钙 B.磷 C.钾 D.钠 E.钠和氯所有细胞中的核酸组成部分是()。
人体分部错误的是
毒性大,不能注射用的抗真菌药是
青年女性,尿频、尿急、尿痛伴终末血尿2个月余,尿呈淘米水状,内有大量脓细胞和絮状物,排泄性肾盂造影表现为肾盏边缘不整齐如虫蛀样改变,伴腰背痛,五心烦热,咽干口燥,大便干结,舌红少苔,脉细数。诊为
患者,男性,66岁,脑梗死后昏迷,需要插胃管供给营养。病区护士为了提高插管成功方法,应注意插管中不应采取的动作是()
对脑干损害有定位意义的体征是()。
当采用需要系数计算负荷时,应将配电干线范围内的用电设备按类型统一划组。配电所或总降压变电所的计算负荷为各车间变电所计算负荷之和再乘以什么?()
根据《全国主体功能区规划》,下列不属于国家层面的禁止开发区域包括()。
在Excel中,单击某行的行号可以选择整行。()
最新回复
(
0
)