...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of urban affairs >MAXIMUM FEASIBLE MISDIRECTION: A REPLY TO IMBROSCIO
【24h】

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE MISDIRECTION: A REPLY TO IMBROSCIO

机译:最大可能的误导:对IMBROSCIO的答复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

David Imbroscio's attack on what he describes as a "dispersal consensus" in favor of poverty deconcentration policies employs many of the classic tools of persuasive rhetoric, several of which count on the uninformed reader to react with shock and disappointment: exaggerating as well as misstating your counterpart's argument; overstating its likely impact on events in the world; shifting the scope of the argument's application, for example, by turning a targeted policy proposal-part of a solution-into a sweeping cure-all; failing to critically examine the policy alternative you favor and creating a false dichotomy between that alternative and the "dispersal" policy you attack; and portraying a polemic earlier attack on that such policy proposals-notably the Reed and Steinberg (2006) attack on the so-called "Gang of 200" petition that I drafted soon after Hurricane Katrina-as though that attack were fair, well-reasoned, and somehow revealing of a great, hidden truth ("penetrating").
机译:戴维·伊姆布罗西奥(David Imbroscio)抨击他所称的扶贫政策是“分散共识”,它使用了许多具有说服力的经典措辞工具,其中一些依靠不了解情况的读者做出震惊和失望的反应:夸大其词并夸大您的言辞对方的论点夸大其对世界事件的可能影响;改变论点的适用范围,例如,通过将针对性的政策建议(解决方案的一部分)转变为全面解决方案;没有严格审查您喜欢的政策选择,并且在该选择和您攻击的“分散”政策之间造成了错误的二分法;并描绘了针对此类政策提议的较早的攻击,尤其是Reed和Steinberg(2006)对我在卡特里娜飓风过后不久起草的所谓的“ 200人团伙”请愿书的攻击,尽管这种攻击是公正,合理的,并以某种方式揭示了一个伟大的隐藏的真相(“穿透”)。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of urban affairs》 |2008年第2期|131-137|共7页
  • 作者

    XAVIER DE SOUZA BRIGGS;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号