You know that they do fight fire with fire and it’s quite effect.
What's Going on With the Site?
- Thread starter 鬼百合
- Start date
That early it is likely in the middle of a backup of the database.
That simply isn't true. A backfire burns the fuel the fire would otherwise use to spread. It is an effective firefighting technique.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Makes sense. Thanks. It didn't last long and is fine now.
Scott
Verified User
I decided to do a little investigating into the saying, found this article, which I found interesting:
Can you really fight fire with fire?
At some point in your life, a coach may have enthusiastically told you to "fight fire with fire." Coach, of course, was speaking metaphorically. Do firefighters actually employ this strategy?
science.howstuffworks.com
It generally talks about the firefighting technique of controlled burns, but there is a passage that doesn't:
**
The phrase goes back at least as far as 1597, when William Shakespeare wrote "Be stirring as the time; be fire with fire; Threaten the threatener and outface the brow of bragging horror" in his play "The Life and Death of King John" [source: Martin]. In other words, match aggression with aggression. Meet violence with violence. Take an eye for an eye. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. You know -- the Chicago way.
**
The problem with this technique is that, much like the current large wars going on, especially in the middle east, this tends to just escalate things. I'm sure you've heard of some variation of "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" and this is doubly true if things are done in what might be called the "Chicago way" where things escalate.
Going back to actual firefighter analogies of using fire, the trick is much like I described before when I said to cut off the oxygen, which in threads means to cut off responses- fire is used to consume fuel that a fire would have used to continue spreading.
My comment still stands, they use fire to fight fire.I decided to do a little investigating into the saying, found this article, which I found interesting:
Can you really fight fire with fire?
At some point in your life, a coach may have enthusiastically told you to "fight fire with fire." Coach, of course, was speaking metaphorically. Do firefighters actually employ this strategy?
It generally talks about the firefighting technique of controlled burns, but there is a passage that doesn't:
**
The phrase goes back at least as far as 1597, when William Shakespeare wrote "Be stirring as the time; be fire with fire; Threaten the threatener and outface the brow of bragging horror" in his play "The Life and Death of King John" [source: Martin]. In other words, match aggression with aggression. Meet violence with violence. Take an eye for an eye. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. You know -- the Chicago way.
**
The problem with this technique is that, much like the current large wars going on, especially in the middle east, this tends to just escalate things. I'm sure you've heard of some variation of "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" and this is doubly true if things are done in what might be called the "Chicago way" where things escalate.
Going back to actual firefighter analogies of using fire, the trick is much like I described before when I said to cut off the oxygen, which in threads means to cut off responses- fire is used to consume fuel that a fire would have used to continue spreading.
Scott
Verified User
You're right about backfiring and controlled burns more generally, but as I just mentioned to Phantasmal, the reason this works is because you're starving the fire of fuel. Russia did much the same thing to Napolean's army by burning a Russian city he would have used to feed his troops. This doesn't work when it comes to insulting an ideological opponent who has done so first- if anything, you are -encouraging- them to continue the flame war as you're showing that such behaviour is fine. I will say that, looking at many threads here, I think that insults tend to kill conversations, for the simple reason that few people find it worth responding to insults over a long period of time, even if it's just to lob more insults back the other way.
Scott
Verified User
My comment still stands, they use fire to fight fire.I decided to do a little investigating into the saying, found this article, which I found interesting:
Can you really fight fire with fire?
At some point in your life, a coach may have enthusiastically told you to "fight fire with fire." Coach, of course, was speaking metaphorically. Do firefighters actually employ this strategy?
It generally talks about the firefighting technique of controlled burns, but there is a passage that doesn't:
**
The phrase goes back at least as far as 1597, when William Shakespeare wrote "Be stirring as the time; be fire with fire; Threaten the threatener and outface the brow of bragging horror" in his play "The Life and Death of King John" [source: Martin]. In other words, match aggression with aggression. Meet violence with violence. Take an eye for an eye. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. You know -- the Chicago way.
**
The problem with this technique is that, much like the current large wars going on, especially in the middle east, this tends to just escalate things. I'm sure you've heard of some variation of "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" and this is doubly true if things are done in what might be called the "Chicago way" where things escalate.
Going back to actual firefighter analogies of using fire, the trick is much like I described before when I said to cut off the oxygen, which in threads means to cut off responses- fire is used to consume fuel that a fire would have used to continue spreading.
They do, but we're not actually fighting real fires here, are we? When it comes to fires of the insult variety, adding more insults doesn't tend to help anything.
You be you and what works for you. I’ve found racists aren’t worth my time or capable of reasonable debate. If you wish to engage them, great! They aren’t worth my time or respect. You’re lecturing me won’t change a thing.
Scott
Verified User
It seems you've misunderstood me. I never said you should spend much time with racists. Technically, my focus has been on insults rather than racists, but my solution for habitual insults is actually the one you're employing- starve them of responses, which is the metaphorical oxygen for flamers.