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
28
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
Lackgovernmentsupport,theyhadtoapproachsponsors,organizers,andmusiciansontheirown—atfirst,sheclaims,inhercoun
ThetwopsychologistshadtomodifytheAmericanSignLanguagesomewhatinordertoaccommodatethechimpanzees’spontaneousges
Thefieldofmedicinehasalwaysattracteditsshareofquacksandcharlatans—disreputablewomenandmenwithlittleornomed
Someconsumerresearchersdistinguish【C1】______"rational"motivesand"emotional"(or"non-rational"motives.Theyusetheterm
Someofthelow-endMade-in-Chinamechanical-electronicproductsarenotsellingwellinexportmarketascomparedwithwhatare
EQEQisinnate.Infantsasyoungasthreemonthsshowempathy.Nowhereisthediscussionofemotionalintelligencemorep
SexualReproductionBirdsdoit.Beesdoit.Butdandelionsdon’t.Theprodigiousspreadofthesewinsomeweedsunderscoresa
下面你将听到的是一段有关旅游的讲话。旅游是一项集观光、娱乐、健身为一体的愉快而美好的活动。旅游业随着时代进步而不断进步。从20世纪中期起,现代旅游业在全世界迅速发展。游客人数不断增长,旅游业规模持续扩大,旅游经济地位显著提升,旅游活动愈
美国人每天要用4500亿加仑的水。这些量的水可以让纽约城淹没在96英尺深的水中。我们应该记住,在地球上的水并不是取之不尽的。
纽约房屋过于拥挤,导致餐馆垃圾无法及时运出,为老鼠在餐馆内寻找食源提供便利。
随机试题
在血钙测定中,要排除哪种离子的影响
胞宫的主要生理功能是()
水泥混凝土抗折强度试验加载点的具体位置,应为标准试件从一端量起的()处。
在建筑线与红线之间的地带,应用于敷设()。
根据水利水电工程施工分包的有关规定,以下施工违法分包的是()。
(2011年)下列各课税要素,与纳税期限的选择密切相关的是()。
市区内某大型商贸公司为增值税一般纳税人,兼营商品加工、批发、零售和进出口业务,8月份相关经营业务如下:(1)进口高尔夫球一批,支付货物的价款820万元,另支付国外代理人经纪费4万元;支付运抵我国海关地前的运输费用20万元、装卸费用和保险费用11万元。(
某公司股东发现本公司经理在经营中收受贿赂,给公司造成损失,该股东应先向监事会反映,如无结果才可以向人民法院提起诉讼。()
在PowerPoint中,使用快捷键(55)可以使选定的文本添加下划线。
Oneafternoon,whenthelessonswereover,JohnandMikeGreendidn’tgohome.They(11)inschooltohelptheirteacher.Their
最新回复
(
0
)