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
38
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
Ofalltheareasoflearningthemostimportantisthedevelopmentofattitudes.Emotionalreactionsaswellaslogicalthought
Partiesarethereforefreetostriveforasettlementwithoutjeopardizingtheirchancesfororinatrialifmediationisunsuc
Moreandmorevehiclesusingcheapfuel,declaredscientistsattheconference,haveleftBangkok’schildrenwithbodyleadleve
Healwaysincludedsomethingabovetheunderstandingofhishearersinordertopreventthemfrombecoming______andtostimulate
InterpersonalRelationshipsInthelast25yearswehavewitnessedanimpressivegrowthinourknowledgeaboutemotionsande
Thereisnonecessarilyintrinsicconnectionbetweenawordandthethingitrefersto;therelationispurely______.
地球大气层正在转暖,这种迹象日趋明显,这向人们提出了一个重大问题,即地球变暖在多大程度上应归咎于人类活动,又在多大程度上是自然原因造成的?气候变化科学家们正在寻求答案。经过对全球气候变化的全方位定期科学评估,科学家们断定全球气候受到了“显而易见的人为影响”
下面你将听到一段有关校园暴力问题的讲话。
A、China.B、Japan.C、U.S.A.D、U.K.C文中将中国大陆、日本和美国的诵读困难问题作了数字统计比较,发现中国大陆和日本出现该问题的人不足5%,而美国则是10-20%,经过简单判断,可知选项c的内容是正确的。
道琼斯指数主要用于对纽约证券交易所的股票行情涨跌进行衡量与报道。
随机试题
Mostdictionarieswilltellyouanumberof【21】aboutalanguage.Therearethreethingsinparticularthat【22】important.Theset
患者,女,26岁,已婚。孕39周余,阵发性下腹痛8小时,伴阴道少量血性黏液。检查:宫缩40秒/3分钟,宫口已开大达4~5厘米。其诊断是
统计推断的两个方面为
下列哪种不是卡比多巴的特点?()
我国目前个人住房贷款中的浮动利率制度,使借款人承担了相当大比率的利率风险,这就导致借款人在利率下降周期中出现贷款违约的可能性加大。()
某鞭炮企业是增值税一般纳税人。本月将150箱甲鞭炮销售给A商贸企业,不含税价格800元/箱,50箱移送非独立门市销售部,以850元/箱的价格全部对外销售。120箱甲鞭炮销售给B商贸企业,含税价1100元/箱,200箱交换给其他企业,50箱给员工作福利。月初
()的形成是在社会规范学习中实现的。
Imaginean11-year-oldchildwhosedaysareoftenspent【C1】______clothes,【C2】______ababybrother,strugglingwith【C3】______farm
下面关于函数依赖的叙述中,不正确的是______。
Somemoderncitiesareusuallyfamousforpeoplewholiveaverylongtime.
最新回复
(
0
)