Most people use the phrase ‘fight fire with fire’ like ‘bring a gun to a gun fight’ or ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind’. In these cases, the nature of the phrase is about matching the level of aggression. That was how it was used by Shakespeare back in 1597!
But firefighters literally fight fire with fire as a preventative measure via backfires or controlled burns. In these cases, they use a smaller, more controllable fire to consume the fuel to prevent or contain larger fires. After all, without fuel, a fire simply cannot burn.
So, fighting fire with fire should be used in the latter sense more often because then you won’t have to use it in the former sense, ya dig?
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Uh, what?
That is what they do but that doesn’t make the phrase preventative.
It literally translates into “Use the weapons of your enemies against them” No more no less. Which is still what firefighters do. The fact they use it preventatively doesn’t mean everyone using the phrase will.
It’s a tactic.
Fight fire with water dude.
They (usually) don’t use fire as a preventative measure. They usually use it because there is already a fire
Fight fire with fire before there is fire doesn’t have the same ring to it…
Here is the thing it won’t, strange thing about a turn of phrase that has been actively used by a culture for 400 years it’s meaning is pretty solidly in place.
Edit: also you seem to have failed to understand what your advocating for here.
If someone looks like they are about to fight me, Shakespeares dont fight fire with fire is about attempting to deescalate the situation. Your absolutely fight fire with fire is about firing an opening salvo so severe the enemy is incapable of reprisal. Backburning works because you can rob a fire of its fuel in a pretty chill way. But if Jimmy is going to punch him in the face, all the ways that I have to hurt Jimmy that will remove his ability to punch me in the face are all significant escalations.
Like my options are to render him unconscious (which doesn’t last nearly as long as it does in tv shows and video games and also comes with significant risks of brain injury) Maim him (the enemy cannot push a button if you remove his hand) or kill him.
If Jimmy applies the same logic then eventually you get something that looks like police interactions in America where because the Policeman is worried that you will shoot him with a gun, he shoots you with a gun so you cannot shoot him with a gun.
In a literal sense wildland firefighters fight fire with fire but like what someone else said it isn’t necessarily preventive and it isn’t “matching aggression”.
Sometimes backfiring is fairly large and barely controlled, depending on the fire and desperation of the operation. Usually it’s pretty calm and well organized but in chaotic situations it can be used as a last resort to try to stop or slow fire progression. It can be used on small fire or large fires, in a controlled or uncontrolled manner, it’s a tool and a tactic and a time and place.
We had a shift where we were running with torches firing off, with our squad bosses firing very pistols along the way. We we just trying to keep ahead of the fire the best we could with what we had.
Another perspective for prescribed burns is that you aren’t fighting fire, because fire is your friend. You are simply helping return balance to a fire dependent ecosystem. Fire is a natural and necessary part of many ecosystems and in the last couple centuries we have robbed nature the ability to allow fire to play it’s important part in the ecosystem.