l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 HuffPo Contributor: ‘Why Should I Care’ About Death of Ambassador Stevens
September 13, 2012 Posted by Warner Todd Huston
Huffington Post contributor Sharmine Narwani took the occasion of the murder
of our ambassador to Libya to launch into an anti-American diatribe that
culminated in her asking why she is supposed to care about Ambassador Chris
Stevens’ death or that of the other two killed with him.
Sharmine Narwani, who is also a correspondent for Al Jezeera and an
associate at St Antony’s College, Oxford University, took to her Twitter
account on Wednesday after it was reported that Ambassador Stevens was
murdered by a rioting Islamist crowd in Benghazi, Libya.
100s of 1,000s of Arabs & Muslims slaughtered by American troops. Tell
me again why I should care about whatshisname-plus-three?
Almost immediately Twitter followers began to attack the HuffPo blogger for
her callousness. But Narwani was unapologetic. At one point she asked a
detractor why he questioned her “logic” just because it was different from
his. “His life,” she said of the ambassador, “does not hold any more
weight than another.”
But here’s the actual logic to Narwani’s points. If she feels that
ambassador Stevens’ death is somehow equal with everyone else’s and yet is
so dismissive of his death, then logic states she is equally dismissive of
all deaths. You can’t be dismissive of one death if you think all deaths
are equal without being dismissive of all!
Logic is obviously not Narwani’s strong suit. | w**d
发帖数: 956 | 2 我来替你总结一下你贴的东东，向你继续请教一下逻辑问题。
你贴的文章批评HuffPo Contributor Narwani 没有逻辑， 因为她不care 美国大使的
死，却care 成百上千阿拉伯人的死。
文章最后的逻辑是 Narwani is dismissive of one death， all deaths are equal，
所以Narwani being dismissive of all! Narwani对生命如此漠视，是要狠狠批判。
我认为这个文章逻辑很对阿，深受启发，推断出下一个逻辑：
如果 LZ cares one death， all deaths are equal， 所以LZ cares of all!
如果 LZ cares only one death， all deaths are equal， 但是 LZ does not care
of all other deaths except the one， 那 LZ 也没有了逻辑，是不是？ | w**d
发帖数: 956 | | w**d
发帖数: 956 | 4 楼主一直没有回复，看来我这逻辑是没问题了。我真高兴啊，楼主前两天还在帖子里严
厉批评我脑子拎不清，脑子不好使， 知道你错了吧。没关系，只要以后不动不东瞎估
计，也不急着给人贴标签，归类，下结论，言辞里也少耍孩子气给人起外号，我觉得你
还是能做个称职的版主。
楼主是F1出身，脑子特别好使，有熟读历史，在下就接着请教一下阅读理解的问题。通
常一个人写文章，总是要表达自己的意见，但这意见不能太直白地表达出来，因为那样
读起来像白开水，没味道，读者要去从文章的字里行间找作者向要表达的意思，这就需
要推断引申，但读者推断引申的对不对，就要看阅读理解的能力，所以要想脑子特别好
使得人学习。
我看了楼主贴的东东，作者要表达的意思是像HuffPo Contributor Narwani这样的自由
派又虚伪又不爱国，我是怎么推断引申出来的哪？ 作者提到Narwani一点不关心刚刚暴
死的美国大使，却很关心被美国大兵打死的成百上千的阿拉伯穆斯林，所有的死亡都是
一样的，她既然不关心美国大使一个人的死，按照逻辑也应该不关心阿拉伯穆斯林的死
阿？所以Narwani的逻辑就不通了，她关心被美国大兵打死的成百上千的阿拉伯穆斯林
也就是虚伪的表现。我认为这样的自由派是要狠狠批评。
楼主贴了这个东东， 又不作评论，不过根据搂主屁股坐的位置，我推测楼主是完全同
意文章表达的意思，所谓心有戚戚焉。这个东东要表达的另一个意思，也是我根据逻辑
推断引申来的，就是文章的作者和楼主都十分关心刚刚暴死的美国大使，所有的死亡都
是一样的，他们也非常关心被美国大兵打死的成百上千的阿拉伯穆斯林。 我被文章作
者和楼主这些保守派拥有如此普世关爱人权的心怀深深打动。
当然就在我被楼主普世关爱人权的心怀深深打动的同时，我对这一合乎逻辑的推断心中
却有着很大的不安，因为我总是以险恶的心态来看别人，所谓以小人之心度君子之腹，
我觉得文章的作者和楼主真正心里想的是什么，他们都十分关心刚刚暴死的美国大使，
但他们毫不关心被美国大兵打死的成百上千的阿拉伯穆斯林。这不是没有逻辑了吗？
经过苦苦思索，我终于明白文章的作者和楼主真正的逻辑，All Deaths Are Not Equal
! 一个美国大使的死重于泰山，成千上万的阿拉伯穆斯林的死轻于鸿毛。
想到这里，我的心中忽然放松下来，楼主给留的英文阅读理解作业总算可以交差了，而
且我还还是第一个交作业的。 |
|
