"Congress is right in reducing the taxes of the wealthy more than those
of the working classes. After all, wealthy people not only pay more into
the treasury but they also have a higher standard of living to maintain.
If the cost of soybeans has risen, so also has the cost of caviar; if the
subway fare has increased, so has the maintenance cost of a Rolls-
Royce and a Lear jet. If the government listens to the minor grumbling
and whining of the unemployed, it surely should be responsive to the
plight of the affluent."
Then the instructoral part:
"The Distinction Between Literal and Ironic Statement
Not everything that is said is intended to be taken literally. Sometimes, a writer
makes a point by saying the exact opposite of what is meant—that is, by using irony
or satire. Suppose, for example, you encountered this passage in your reading:
On the surface, this certainly looks like a plea on behalf of the rich. But on
closer inspection, it will be seen as a mockery of that plea. The clues are subtle,
to be sure, but undeniable: the reference to the higher standard of living, the
comparison of travel by Rolls-Royce or jet with travel by subway, the reference
to the “plight” of the rich. Such tongue-in-cheek writing can be more biting and
therefore more effective than a direct attack. Yet you must be alert to the subtlety
and not misread it, or the message you receive will be very different from
the message that has been expressed."
What am I going to do if there is a fox news robot in my class that asserts this is correct and shouts down anyone who disagrees? I never took a critical thinking course at university, but plenty of fools that would do exactly as I described crawled out of the woodwork to frustrate everyone else in some classes I did take. Will I be able to control my temper? Will I deal with that kind of situation in a calm but firm manner like my professors did? Or will I come off like a psycho or a wimp?
No comments:
Post a Comment