bloody中等

Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions — like, say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.

如果争论就是争斗——我们常常这样看待争论——那么卡耐基就是对的。和肢体冲突一样，口头争斗也会让双方都头破血流。即使你赢了，最终也不会更好。即便争论只是竞赛——比如说网球比赛——你的前景也几乎同样黯淡。对手们两两对阵，来回击球，直到所有参赛者中产生一个胜者。其他人都是输家。正是这种想法让那么多人尽量避免争论，尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。

So what’s the appeal of a long, sweaty day in pursuit of an elusive, fast-moving wild animal? “It just feels bloody brilliant,” says Peters. “If I’ve had a full day of good encounters with butterflies, met interesting butterfly people and I’ve got some good shots, that becomes a vault in my spiritual bank. It’s a happy feeling.”

那么，花上漫长而汗流浃背的一整天去追逐一种难以捉摸、行动迅速的野生动物，吸引力何在？“感觉就是棒极了，”彼得斯说，“如果我度过了与蝴蝶美好相遇的一整天，结识了有趣的蝴蝶爱好者，还拍到了一些好照片，那就成了我精神银行里的一座金库。那是一种快乐的感觉。”