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
35
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
Thescientistshaveabsolutefreedomastowhatresearchtheythinkitbestto______.
Moreandmorevehiclesusingcheapfuel,declaredscientistsattheconference,haveleftBangkok’schildrenwithbodyleadleve
Itwasoneofthosedayswhenitlookedatfirstsomethinginterestingcouldhappen,butthenlater,whenyoudidn’texpectanyt
Thebookgivesabrief______ofthecourseofhisresearchuptillnow.
Theamazingsuccessofhumansasa【C1】______istheresultoftheevolutionarydevelopmentofourbrainswhichhasled,amongoth
Allmammalshavehair,butnotalwaysevident.
Ithinkyoucantakea(n)______languagecoursetoimproveyourEnglish.
EQEQisinnate.Infantsasyoungasthreemonthsshowempathy.Nowhereisthediscussionofemotionalintelligencemorep
InterpersonalRelationshipsInthelast25yearswehavewitnessedanimpressivegrowthinourknowledgeaboutemotionsande
女士们、先生们、朋友们!一个音符无法表达出优美的旋律,一种颜色难以描绘出多彩的画卷。世界是一座丰富多彩的艺术殿堂,各国人民创造的独特文化都是这座殿堂里的瑰宝。一个民族的文化,往往凝聚着这个民族对世界和生命的历史认知和现实感受,也往往积淀着这个民族
随机试题
患儿10个月,因间断腹泻2个月,面色苍白1个月就诊,大便2~3次/天,呈糊状,母乳喂养,4个月添加辅食。患儿3个月时因患坏死性小肠结肠炎,而行小肠大部切除,术后一般情况渐好转。查体:皮肤黏膜苍白,舌细微震颤,心脏(-),肝肋下2.5cm,脾肋下1cm,血红
孔子运用启发式教学的主要方法是()
公共政策学的概念体系在内部构成上区分为________、_________、________。
国家有关规定对投标人资格条件或招标文件对投标人资格条件有规定的,投标人应当具备规定的( )。根据《招标投标法》的规定,投标人应当按照招标文件的要求( )。
(2013年)甲公司为实现多元化经营,决定对乙公司进行长期股权投资。甲公司和乙公司适用的企业所得税税率均为25%,按净利润的10%提取盈余公积。投资业务的相关资料如下: (1)2009年11月10日,甲公司与丙公司签订了收购其持有的乙公司2000万股普
设备交接单的当事人是()。
Istheresomethingastruth?Foragoodmanycenturies"thesearchfortruth"hasbeen【C1】______thenoblestactivityofthehuma
中国人民抗日战争,是近代以来中华民族反抗外敌入侵第一次取得完全胜利的民族解放战争,具有的重要历史意义包括()
社会主义初级阶段的生产力水平和发展的不平衡性,给非公有制经济留下了广阔的空间。非公有制经济是促进经济社会发展的重要作用体现在()
MeridianFinanceGroup12477thStreet,Suite200,SantaMonica,CA90401
最新回复
(
0
)