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
2025-01-15
6
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] At the end of the passage "going at each other hammer and tongs" means______.
选项
A、attacking or abusing stealthily
B、mocking or scoffing with tongs
C、compromising or consulting with a hammer
D、quarrelling or fighting noisily
答案
A
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3913869.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
Inourtimeitisbroadlytruethatpoliticalwritingisbadwriting.Where
Afterdecadesofdecline,theshareofmotherswhostayhomewiththeirchil
关于建筑内开水间设计,错误的是( )。A.应设给水管 B.应设排污排水管
试回答隔离栅工程质量检验评定标准的问题。(5)隔离栅工程质量检验评定的外观质量项
女性,28岁,产后一个月,血压高,晨起床叠被后觉鼻痒打喷嚏,继之胸闷,呼吸不畅,
按照反映的生产要素消耗内容,可将建设工程定额分为()。A、建筑工程定额 B、安
A.温肾助阳,暖宫止痛 B.行气活血,化瘀止痛 C.补血养营,和中止痛 D
根据以下材料, 某消防大队对某4层、占地面积4000m2的服装加工厂进行消防检
2017年9月23日,羊某某到鼎尚酒行购买10箱“洋河蓝色经典?天之蓝”白酒,并
下述哪种表现不是血栓闭塞性脉管炎的特点A.病人多为男性青壮年 B.病变主要侵袭
最新回复
(
0
)