How to build a speech being not familiar with the topic
Earlier, when the school pupils were writing an essay, they were often given the opportunity to choose whether to write about the work of the writer or to write a “free” topic. Most of them were choosing the second option, because, for the first one, they had to read the literary work, while the “free topic” was creating an opportunity just to philosophize “in the air” on a free subject, “What is love?”, “What is happiness?,” “How to love the Motherland?” Certainly, in this case too, the school pupil should show literacy or maybe a literary talent, but never the lack of the knowledge.
Indeed, when talking about the original subject, you should, first of all, have the desire. For example, when the couples argue, they do not have the desire. Let’s say, one of them says, “Why have you put the plate here?”, he is not interested in the plate, he is interested mutual “generalizations” incurred from discussing the position of the plate with the following sequence: “you always throw everything away” – “No, you are throwing everything away.” “You ruined my whole youth.” – “No, it is you, who ruined my whole life,” “my mom was right saying,” “no, my grandmother was right saying,” and so on.
With this logic our parliamentarians are disputing, to the point, it does not matter which is the original subject of their dispute. Actually, it’s a “free subject”. “You’re looters and election forgers,” “you were more frogers during the tenure of your power,” “And you gave half of the country to the Turks in 1920,” “No, you have to wash our feet and drink the water,” “I am an honest musician and you have destroyed Armenia.” And so on and so forth. The topic may be, for example, the issue of making amendments to the law on “Collateral”. But no one, naturally, is interested in the collateral, people prefer speaking on “free” topics.
In addition that there should be the willingness to speak on the original topic, people need to bother themselves to read the material subject to discussion, let’s say, the draft Constitution, the budget or any draft law, but no one has the “inclination” to do so. Leaving the complex and knowledge requiring topics behind, the parliamentarians are immediately passing to “generalizations”, the “devil is catching Serzh Sargsyan,” “this lawmaker has said at the US embassy that he wants blood.” Tell me, please, how it is related to the budget.
It seems that the budget has nothing to do with the quantity of the service vehicles of the officials. They are truly many, here, the entire approach should be changed, except for the highest officials, nobody should have a vehicle “attached” to him. The remaining services should be made by ordering, in the case of necessity at the workplace. But it is not an economic but ethical and moral problem because the lawmakers realize very well that it is impossible to solve any economic problems with the saved money, they are not ready to personally refuse from the service cars. Simply, they have found a sonorous topic and are engaged in populism. Incidentally, exactly in the same way, the “non-contextual” critics of the Constitution know very well that after April 9, 2018, Serzh Sargsyan will not rule the country. But to find any other argument against the draft constitution, it is necessary to get acquainted with the “topic”. While no efforts are required for the “free topic”.
Many people even give interviews like that. A question, “What do you think about the black hollows emerged in the universe?” The answer, “Serzh Sargsyan …” The best anecdote about “free topic” is about the filing.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
