评论
打印
You tell your friend that eating fats can be part of a healthy diet and he gets mad
你告诉朋友吃一些高热量的食物也是健康饮食的一部分，
and starts yelling at you, "Oh, so you want me to eat McDonald's all day?!
他非常生气的向你吼道，“你是想让我整天吃麦当劳
You want me to eat trans fats all day?!
和反式脂肪吗？
Is that what you call healthy?!"
这就是你所谓的健康饮食？”
In his mind, he's somehow rebutting your argument.
在他的意识中，想要反驳你的观点。
However, what he's done is essentially twisted what you said into something that you didn't say,
然而，他是把你的观点扭曲了，
and now he's attacking his own little constructed argument.
而且他也在攻击他自己的小论点。
You tell him that you were thinking more along the lines of nuts and seeds,
你告诉他你在思考坚果和种子的纹路，
but for some reason, he continues to be very angry with you.
但是出于某些原因，他仍然跟你生气。
You and your friend are debating the complex question of how taxes should be collected.
你和朋友正在讨论怎样收税这种复杂的问题。
You're more fiscally conservative while he's more fiscally liberal.
你更倾向于财政保守，他却更倾向于财政自由。
And so far, the argument has been going great but all of a sudden he brings up Donald Trump
到目前为止，讨论进入白热化阶段，但他却突然提到唐纳德·特朗普
and all the bad things Trump has done in his life.
以及他的一生所为。
He goes on and on about Trump maybe thinking that he's somehow strengthening his position,
他不停的讲特朗普，可能以为是在强化自己的观点，
but he's essentially introduced something that's irrelevant to the debate,
但是从本质上讲，他做的陈述和此次辩论毫无关联，
and his argument of whether Trump is a good guy or a bad guy
而且关于特朗普是否是好人的论辩
really says nothing overall about the merits of fiscal conservatism
没有凸显任何财政保守主义的优点
just like whether Hillary is a sketchy lady or a nice lady says nothing about the merits of fiscal liberalism.
就类似于，不管希拉里是不是一位和蔼的夫人，这都和财政自由主义的优点无关。
You're debating your friend about a topic and you bring up some very valid points.
在辩论的时候，你提出了有力的论点。
And instead of addressing those points, he gets angry and starts telling you
他没有论述那些观点，反而非常生气的
how you're wrong because you're an asshole or because you're ugly
指责你是怎么错的，因为你人品有问题，又或者是因为你很丑，
implying that your character or your physical attributes
以此来暗示了你的性格或身体特征
somehow have anything to do with the validity of your argument.
与你论点的有效性相关。
A friend of yours asks you to explain in detail everything since the start of the universe.
朋友让你解释从宇宙起源以来的所有细节。
You tell him that even though we know quite a bit, we don't know every single detail about everything
你说尽管我们知道很多，但我们不可能懂得所有事情的每一个细节，
but we're looking for evidence constantly and working on putting the puzzle together.
但是我们一直在寻在证据，并致力于整合这些问题。
He laughs in your face. See, you have no answers but he does.
他当面嘲笑你。瞧，你回答不了，他却可以。
He tells you that the spaghetti monster created everything with his loving tentacles.
他告诉你是意大利面飞行怪用它可爱的触手创造了万物。
You've just been served an argument from ignorance.
多么无知的论调。
We don't know certain things for sure, therefore it must be the spaghetti monster.
有些事情我们确定不了，所以就把它扣在意大利面飞行怪的头上。
Your friend tells you that he saw on TV that if he eats some crazy herb every day, he won't get cancer anymore.
朋友告诉你，如果每天多吃一些药草，他就不会得癌症。
And you're kind of skeptical and ask for more evidence,
你有点怀疑并希望他能提供更多的证据来证明这一点，
and he tells you that it's true because the guy who said it on TV is this famous doctor and he also has a PhD.
他坚信那是真的，因为是一个非常有名的博士医生在电视上讲的。
Unfortunately, just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean that they're not full of shit.
不幸的是，拥有博士学位并不能表明他的言论就完全可信。
And also unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to understand this.
遗憾的是很多人貌似都不明白这一点。
