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
26
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.
Which of the following words does NOT refer to "debate"?
选项
A、Intellectual fight.
B、Conflict.
C、Victim.
D、Dispute.
答案
C
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/uTcO777K
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
Ourcompanyhasbeenmadeoneofthelargestmanufacturersinthefieldofchemicalindustry.
Japanandthenewlyindustrializedcountriesarepassinglabor-intensivesectsasgarment-makingovertolessdevelopednations
Allmammalshavehair,butnotalwaysevident.
Theamazingsuccessofhumansasa【C1】______istheresultoftheevolutionarydevelopmentofourbrainswhichhasled,amongoth
EQEQisinnate.Infantsasyoungasthreemonthsshowempathy.Nowhereisthediscussionofemotionalintelligencemorep
Thegrowthrateoftheregion’seconomyhas______thenationalaverageforsixyears.
主席先生,女士们、先生们:目前,国际形势正处于深刻变化之中。和平与发展仍然是当今时代的主题,总体和平的国际环境为世界经济发展提供了有利条件;科技进步日新月异并孕育着新的重大突破,前所未有地提高了人类认识、把握宏观和微观世界的能力,展现了新的发展
上个世纪70年代末,我参加了第四次全国文代会,大会上小平同志致辞时获得的长时间的热烈掌声给我留下了极深的印象。这次大会是文艺界经历十年浩劫后的第一次盛会,也是小平同志复出后第一次代表党中央、国务院同广大文艺工作者见面。1960年的第三次文代会后,
当今是法行天下的时代。国运之兴盛,政治之昌明,社会之稳定,经济之发展,民族之团结,文化之繁荣,人民之安居乐业,都离不开法律之维系和法律之保障。中国也不例外。一个国家采取什么样的治国方略,关系着国家的前途和命运。20世纪末,拥有十二亿人口的中国
全纽约市的地铁和公交工人继续罢工。对于上班族而言,又要面临艰难的一天,考虑如何才能方便出行。纽约市官员担心会有很多人开车进城,会造成严重交通阻塞。因此,早晨期间,凡乘员少于四人的车辆都将不得进入曼哈顿部分区域。官员们警告说,纽约市的经济可能受到重创。纽约市
随机试题
测定基础代谢率时不要求
参数的定义
我国现存的第1部产科专著是
我国实行民族区域自治,主要体现在下列哪些选项?()
如图7—34所示电路中,换路前处于稳态,换路后iR(0)等于()A。
为了收集犯罪证据、查获犯罪人,对犯罪嫌疑人以及可能隐藏罪犯或者犯罪证据的人的身体、物品、住处和其他有关的地方进行的搜索、检查,称为()。
邮件服务器的配置有以下几个步骤,正确的安装顺序为:(1)。A.设置邮件服务器端口、邮箱根目录、认证方式B.邮件服务器中添加域、用户C.在邮件客户端软件中配置用户邮箱D.利用“配置您的服务器向导”安装相关组件图2-3中“接
在结构化方法中,用数据流程图(DFD)作为描述工具的软件开发阶段是______。
Readthefollowingmagazinearticleandanswerquestions9-18onthenextpage.TheBurdenofThirst0
Cultureisactivityofthought,andreceptivenesstobeautyandhumanefeeling.【C1】______ofinformationhavenothingtodowith
最新回复
(
0
)