Fire vs. Fire

People say all the time that you can’t fight fire with fire, that hate won’t destroy hate.

I’m here to tell you that’s bullshit. This quote right here…

“A lot of people want to ‘fight fire with fire’, but the fact is that doesn’t work.
Water is used to fight fires and hate won’t destroy hate.”

~David G. McAfee

…doesn’t use a valid argument against fire fighting fire, it just illustrates the limitations of a metaphor. We’re not really talking about fire, we’re talking about violence.

When it comes to that, there’s one thing you can be sure of:
If you’re willing to go farther in a conflict than the opposition, you win.

That’s just how the world works. Feel however you want to about it, but don’t expect it to change. Fire fights fire all the time, and a lot of those pyromancers win.



7 thoughts on “Fire vs. Fire

  1. I agree…but the key is in how we define “winning”. Wait, that just went from deep thought to stupid as soon as Charlie Sheen came to mind. He did “win” and he did it with his own definition. Free thought – you get what you pay for. ; )

    Liked by 1 person

    • lol Well, I’m actually a Sheen fan so I liked his idea of winning. The funny thing about his whole meltdown was… he wanted off ‘Two and a Half Men’ and they wouldn’t let him out of his contract. If I didn’t know any better the meltdown was his (effective) way of getting what he wanted 🙂 . Plus he wasn’t wrong haha, that shit was entertaining as hell.

      The Roast of Charlie Sheen on Comedy Central was funny too.


      • Yes, the roast was great. The man has stamina for maintaining his course and I can only admire that. It seems like there were things under the surface of him but regardless of all the crazy – the man seemed to have an incredibly strong sense of conviction and what I loved about that is that it was against our pop media. I wanted him to win anyway he wanted – at that time.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t think you’ll like or agree with my answer, but personally, I think it is valid. Not because it’s morally okay or good, but because it’s effective and, more important to the point I was making here, it’s the reality of how things work. It’s validity is, to me, a matter of observation rather than opinion. And there are more than the obvious kinds of violence too; persuasion and rhetoric are, to my way of thinking, intellectual violence. Some persuasion uses hard language or “underhanded” tactics (e.g. character assassination) and some comes couched in softer language, gentler, less offensive, more focused on the issue or issues of a given discussion, but they’re all varying degrees of the same thing. Imo anyways. Like I said, it might not be the most agreeable of answers to give, but hopefully that clarifies my outlook 🙂 .


      • Hmm.. yep I don’t like the violence. But I do understand that they are effective sometimes, but is it good effective it’s highly debatable. It just leads to lot of fire and few people to put out. I get what you’re saying though, even if I don’t agree entirely.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s