首页
登录
职称英语
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talkshow, it is good fo
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talkshow, it is good fo
游客
2023-12-23
23
管理
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. [br] You may use angry words______.
选项
A、when you are in sticky situations
B、if someone takes up a position in opposition to you
C、if you are angry at other people’s folly
D、when you are the only innocent one
答案
C
解析
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3299308.html
相关试题推荐
[originaltext]DemocratshaveoftenfearedbigmoneyinAmericanpolitics,pe
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgoodfo
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgoodfo
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgoodfo
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgoodfo
Inpolitics,inthecourts,evenontheubiquitousTVtalkshow,itisgoodfo
随机试题
Joanhasbeena______sinceSeptember.[br]Shegoestoschool______.A、fourda
【B1】[br]【B19】A、whyB、whereC、howD、whenC上文提到许多人不懂阅读技巧,故此书的目的是帮助读者了解作者的写作技巧,故选
下列说法正确的是A.伯氏疏螺旋体引起的疾病又称弓形体病 B.伯氏疏螺旋体可通过
排球扣球动作技术结构中的关键环节是()。A.助跑 B.起跳 C.挥臂击球
某客户对风险的关注更甚于对收益的关心,更愿意选择风险较低而不是收益较高的产品,喜
溃疡性结肠炎合并结肠癌的治疗选用( )。A.柳氮磺吡啶 B.糖皮质激素 C
口腔健康促进不包括A:调整自来水含氟浓度 B:宣传口腔健康知识 C:采用糖的
下列各项中,不属于存货储存成本的是()。A.仓库费用 B.保险费用 C
安全生产监督管理的形式多种多样,按照监督时间逻辑可分为事前、事中和事后三种,下列
固定成本是指在一定的产量范围内不受生产数量变化影响的成本费用,下列不属于固定成本
最新回复
(
0
)