2. 职称英语
  3. What is sports violence? The distinction between unacceptable viciousness an

What is sports violence? The distinction between unacceptable viciousness an

游客2024-06-07  24
问题     What is sports violence? The distinction between unacceptable viciousness and a game’s normal rough-and-tumble is impossible to make, and so the argument runs. This position may appeal to our inclination for legalism, but the truth is most of us know quite well when an act of needless savagery has been committed, and sports are little different from countless other activities of life. The distinction is as apparent as that between a deliberately aimed blow and the arm failing of the losing his balance. When a player balls his hand into a fist, when he drives his helmet into an unsuspecting opponent in shorts when he crosses the boundary between playing hard and playing to hurt--he can only intend an act of violence.
    Admittedly, violent acts in sports are difficult to police. But here, too, we find reflected the conditions of everyday life. Ambiguities in the law, confusion at the scene, and the reluctance of witnesses cloud almost any routine assault case. Such uncertainties, however, have not prevented society from arresting people who strike their fellow citizens on the streets.
    Perhaps our troubles stem not from the games we play but rather from how we play them. The 1979 meeting between hockey stars from the Soviet Union and the National Hockey League provided a direct test of two approaches to sport--the emphasis on skill, grace, and finesse by the Russians and the stress on brutality and violence by the NHL. In a startling upset, the Russians embarrassed their rough-playing opponents and exploded a long-standing myth: that success in certain sports requires excessive violence.
    Violence apologists cite two additional arguments. First they say, sports always have been violent; today things are no different. But arguments in America’s Old West were settled on Main Street with six guns, and early cave-dwellers chose their women with a club. Civilizing influences ended those practices yet we are told sports violence should be tolerated. The second contention is that athletes accept risk as part of the game, and, in the case of professional, are paid handsomely to do so. But can anyone seriously argue that being an athlete should require the acceptance of unnecessary physical abuse? And, exaggerated as it may seem the pay of professional athletes presumable reflects their abilities, not a payment against combat injuries.
    "Clearly we are in deep trouble," says perplexed former football player A1DeRogatis. "But how and why hag it gotten so bad?" [br] A sports violence "apologist” probably thinks that______.
选项 A、violence in sports is a rare occurrence
B、violence in sports is not necessary
C、athletes me paid enough for their injuries
D、professional athletes enjoy violence
答案 C
解析 判断题。第四段讲到violence apologists引证的另外两种观点。首先他们认为体育比赛从来就是暴力的，暗示体育暴力并不罕见而且是比赛的必要成分，因此可排除选项A和B。其次，他们认为运动员已接受了危险是比赛的一部分，并且职业选手会为此得到大笔报酬，与答案C相符。文中未提到选项D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3623028.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)