Fighting fire with fire?

[Ben]

Is this just another one of those misunderstood or misused cliches like "eye for an eye"? You can't fight fire with fire. You fight it with water! Unless they mean doing a series of small, controlled fires to reduce the amount of available fuel for the big fire that you're trying to fight.

[Gregory]

Unless you refer to the ancient maritime use of fire arrows and return fire with blazing arrows .

[Gordon Chumway]

Is this just another one of those misunderstood or misused cliches like "eye for an eye"? You can't fight fire with fire. You fight it with water! Unless they mean doing a series of small, controlled fires to reduce the amount of available fuel for the big fire that you're trying to fight.

Yeah like, "suck my balls" I don't really want you to suck my balls.

[greg donovan]

they use explosives to put out oil well fires...

[Foolish Mortal]

You're taking it literally instead of figuratively. The phrase doesn't mean literally fighting a fire with more fire.

When you're in a conflict, dispute, or competition, "fighting fire with fire" means hitting your opponent with the same thing they hit you with.

[Ben]

You're taking it literally instead of figuratively. The phrase doesn't mean literally fighting a fire with more fire.

When you're in a conflict, dispute, or competition, "fighting fire with fire" means hitting your opponent with the same thing they hit you with.I know, but the analogy makes no sense. Figures of speech are supposed to ALSO make sense literally, right? It should be "Let's fight fire with water!"

[thatguyfromsyracuse]

I know, but the analogy makes no sense. Figures of speech are supposed to ALSO make sense literally, right? It should be "Let's fight fire with water!"

You should start saying that and see if it catches on.

[Ben]

You should start saying that and see if it catches on.I bet a lot more problems will get solved.

[Ben]

One way it could make sense is if "fire" means "gunfire." It would make sense to fight gunfire by firing back with your own bullets and kill those that are shooting at you.

[Doc Randy]

You can't fight fire with fire.

Yes you can. It is done all the time. You should look up controlled burns and fire perimeters.

In fact, I'd recommend hunting down PBS and NOVA's "Fire Wars" for an in depth look at modern forest fire fighting.

[Ben]

Yes you can. It is done all the time. You should look up controlled burns and fire perimeters.

In fact, I'd recommend hunting down PBS and NOVA's "Fire Wars" for an in depth look at modern forest fire fighting..
Unless they mean doing a series of small, controlled fires to reduce the amount of available fuel for the big fire that you're trying to fight.This isn't usually what people mean, though, when they use the phrase. Usually they intend to just throw whatever tactic the enemy's using back at them.

[sleep]

One way it could make sense is if "fire" means "gunfire." It would make sense to fight gunfire by firing back with your own bullets and kill those that are shooting at you.

Hmm. I may utilise this strategem myself if I ever find myself armed and under "fire" (so to speak).

[mattbrand]

Hmmm...

http://www.oldjawbone.com/matt/ultimaterockpapescissors.jpg

Nope. Fire beats lots of things, but no fire.

[bobinskil]

John Wayne did it \m/

[Buk Was Right]

Unless you refer to the ancient maritime use of fire arrows and return fire with blazing arrows .

But even then you aren't fighting fire with fire.

You're fighting the people who are fighting you with fire with fire.

But that doesn't really roll off of the tongue does it?

[Doc Randy]

.This isn't usually what people mean, though, when they use the phrase. Usually they intend to just throw whatever tactic the enemy's using back at them.

Just having fun, Ben. :)

http://www.juneauempire.com/images/062407/17823_500.jpg

[Ben]

Just having fun, Ben. :)

http://www.juneauempire.com/images/062407/17823_500.jpgPlaying with fire is never fun!!!

[Foolish Mortal]

I know, but the analogy makes no sense. Figures of speech are supposed to ALSO make sense literally, right? It should be "Let's fight fire with water!"
No. Not necessarily.

Phrases and sayings are often a little obtuse. They're designed to make you think about their meaning a bit.

Saying "Lets fight fire with water" doesn't make you think. It's just a statement of fact.

[Ben]

But even then you aren't fighting fire with fire.

You're fighting the people who are fighting you with fire with fire.

But that doesn't really roll off of the tongue does it?But you still have a fire problem! There won't be any NEW fires, but the first fires that your enemies started will still be running wild!

[Jef UK]

I like to fight Fire with Ice Maiden.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/FirePower.jpg

v.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Icemaidencomi.gif

[thatguyfromsyracuse]

How about "Fight fire with fire extinguishers."?

[Brian Defferding]

Playing with fire is never fun!!!

It's fun as hell :twisted:

[sleep]

.This isn't usually what people mean, though, when they use the phrase. Usually they intend to just throw whatever tactic the enemy's using back at them.

"Fighting fire with fire" must imply that you're responding to your opponent with the same level or type of attack, but as you've pointed out, this will do nothing to extinguish their "fire." (Unless the their attack involved an actual forest fire and you are creating burn perimeters, etc.) But fighting fire with water, while more effective as a defensive strategy, will do nothing to harm your opponent.

... unless your opponent is the fire itself, as FDR would have had us believe.

[Ben]

It's fun as hell :twisted:But hell doesn't sound fun at all!

[sleep]

But hell doesn't sound fun at all!

I think the comparison was more literal. Hell = fire. Playing with fire is never fun. As fun as hell = not fun at all.

[Ben]

I think the comparison was more literal. Hell = fire. Playing with fire is never fun. As fun as hell = not fun at all.Exactly.