理解して／ Such debates often revolve around confrontations over grounds or warrants. Each side may challenge the evidence--the grounds--presented by its opponents, charging that those opponents have misunderstood or misrepresented the nature of the troubling condition "Stat wars" may arise in which each side denounces its opponents' statistics and argues that its own numbers are more accurate (J. Best, 2013). Similarly, opponents may insist that some
warrants ought to be more compelling than others; in the abortion debate, for example, there are sharp disagreements about whether the rights of the fetus or those of the pregnant woman ought to be considered more important.
理解して／ Many claims emerge within and are promoted as linked to particular ideologies—that is, more or less coherent sets of beliefs, such as libertarianism, feminism, liberalism, conservatism, or specific religious doctrines. Ideologies usually emphasize particular warrants; for example, libertarianism views liberty as a central value, and feminism opposes social arrangements that block opportunities for women. Often, too, those familiar with an ideology favor particular grounds; feminists, of course, look for evidence of sexism, and so on. In addition, ideologies often recognize competing belief systems, so liberals and conservatives anticipate disagreeing over many issues. These ideological disputes make it very easy to mount counterclaims; the news that someone associated with a rival ideology is making a claim invites counterclaims.
理解して／ Claims often have to be modified in response to counterclaims. Opposition means that one's arguments will be subjected to sharper scrutiny and criticism, and those elements that prove easiest to challenge may need to be changed or reinforced. A statistic that has
been debunked by one's opponents may be dropped and a more defensible number added to fill the gap, and so on. At the same time, the fact that there is opposition can be incorporated into one's claims. It may be possible to characterize one's opponents
as part of the problem, turning the fact of opposition into a new ground for the claims. At least for those who share our ideology, news that the opposition is making counterclaims can reassure us that we're correct.
Opposition is often predictable. There are social problems clusters-sets of claimsmakers who take similar positions regarding related social problems (J. Best, 2015; Griffiths and Best, 2016). When new issues emerge, many of the same people are likely to find themselves making claims that resemble those they've made in the past. For instance, claims about a new drug problem are likely to resemble those made about older drugs, with drug control advocates calling for new laws and tougher enforcement, even as advocates
of drug abuse prevention and drug treatment warn that cracking down will only make things worse. There are lots of familiar social problems clusters: if you imagine some new issue related to guns, women, the environment, or race, you can probably predict some
of the people likely to make claims, the sorts of rhetoric they are likely to adopt, and the interplay between claims and counterclaims.
In sum, claims are constantly in play. They evolve, and they can inspire both other claims and opposition, so new claims are almost always shaped by those that preceded them.
「 It may be possible to characterize one's opponents as part of the problem, turning the fact of opposition into a new ground for the claims.」の具体例が思いつきません。
新型コロナウィルスの有害性を問題化している人々が、政府や製薬会社がその有害性を決して認めない、ということも、その問題に含めることも、当てはまりますか？
if you imagine some new issue related to guns, women, the environment, or race, you can probably predict some of the people likely to make claims, the sorts of rhetoric they are likely to adopt, and the interplay between claims and counterclaims. について、「Guns」「Women」「Environment」「Race」を問題化している人々が実際にどのようなレトリック等を使っているか教えて。アメリカで
理解してください／ Once a claim has gained acceptance, it is often possible to build additional claims on that foundation. One possibility is domain expansion (J. Best, 1990, 2015). As we have seen, initial claims often emphasize disturbing typifying examples. In the 1960s, for example, claimsmakers described the battered child syndrome, the problem of brutal beatings of infants or very young children. Terrible examples tend to make claims more interesting and effective; they help raise concern about an issue. In turn, once this concern has been
established, it becomes possible to argue that other conditions are just as bad as--really just another form of, or the moral equivalent of--the initial problem. (Think of domain expansion as like opening an umbrella, so that more topics are covered by a social problem.)
説明は出来るのに、何故「和訳」は出来なかったのですか？
にもかかわらず、それ以前にはきちんと和訳していましたが？
今、無料版で試してみましたが、無料版ではきちんと和訳できますね。