"The line between the foolish and the brave is but a bullets breadth apart."
How true is this? What reasons do you have for feeling the way you do?
How true is this? What reasons do you have for feeling the way you do?
Poll: Rate this statement #1
- Thread starter ApeShapeDeity
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Kinda right, I can certainly see the message this statement is trying to get across in any case.
Hmm... I'm sorry but I don't have anything to add beyond that... Do you think this statement is true? What do you hope to learn by asking others to rate it?
Hmm... I'm sorry but I don't have anything to add beyond that... Do you think this statement is true? What do you hope to learn by asking others to rate it?
It doesn't really make much sense without context. If it is a quote from something, I'm not familiar with it.
A bullet's breadth? So the width of a bullet separates the two concepts? What purpose is there in using a bullet to measure this line? Is the line the trajectory of a bullet? If so why does that separate the two concepts on opposite sides? What is the point of the bullet? The bullet is ruining everything. We don't need the bullet. The bullet is making me angry.
It's basically just 'There is a fine line between bravery and foolishness', but with extra baggage.
As for how 'true' it is. I would say 'not very'. As several other people have said, it's not a 'one or the other' situation. You can be brave, you can be foolish, and you can be both. They are measured on different scales. There is no line between them.
A bullet's breadth? So the width of a bullet separates the two concepts? What purpose is there in using a bullet to measure this line? Is the line the trajectory of a bullet? If so why does that separate the two concepts on opposite sides? What is the point of the bullet? The bullet is ruining everything. We don't need the bullet. The bullet is making me angry.
It's basically just 'There is a fine line between bravery and foolishness', but with extra baggage.
As for how 'true' it is. I would say 'not very'. As several other people have said, it's not a 'one or the other' situation. You can be brave, you can be foolish, and you can be both. They are measured on different scales. There is no line between them.
A person who is afraid of birds (or any other phobia), being willing to come into contact with one, is brave.
A person who knows that they don't have the knowledge to pass an exam, yet doesn't study for it anyway, is foolish.
They aren't necessarily directly connected, so without context, the statement isn't really true at all, as it stands.
A person who knows that they don't have the knowledge to pass an exam, yet doesn't study for it anyway, is foolish.
They aren't necessarily directly connected, so without context, the statement isn't really true at all, as it stands.
From one direction, people who do stupid things that come off purely by fractional luck, definitely do get described as brave. We're not very good at looking at a winner and saying 'that deserves no praise because with rational judgment it shouldn't have worked'. The guy who goes all in off a bad hand in the finals of a poker tournament is a hero rather than lucky and people will always be saying 'but he won, so how can you say what he did was wrong?'
I don't think it necessarily goes the other way though. People who die doing stupid things can be still thought of as brave, and in some senses they were brave because they risked it all. Things have to be really stupid before we're willing to make fun of the dead.
I don't think it necessarily goes the other way though. People who die doing stupid things can be still thought of as brave, and in some senses they were brave because they risked it all. Things have to be really stupid before we're willing to make fun of the dead.
I understand the point it's trying to make (that the difference between a fool and a brave person is whether they succeed in their stupid action), but its not entirely correct as foolishness and bravery aren't mutually exclusive, but more importantly bravery isn't as much of a virtue as courage.
Using a bullet's breadth and war as an example, a fool would charge a machine gun nest thinking they wouldn't get shot, a brave person would charge a machine gun nest not even considering the fact that they could get shot (which is also foolish), but a courageous person would charge a machine gun nest in full knowledge of and fearful of the fact they could get shot, but choosing to do so anyway because they've decided that the outcome of their action (i.e. disabling the machine gun) is more important to the cause than their own individual safety, which while virtuous, could also be foolish depending on the situation (e.g. a infantryman courageously charging a machine gun nest when their side has a tank a few minutes away).
Using a bullet's breadth and war as an example, a fool would charge a machine gun nest thinking they wouldn't get shot, a brave person would charge a machine gun nest not even considering the fact that they could get shot (which is also foolish), but a courageous person would charge a machine gun nest in full knowledge of and fearful of the fact they could get shot, but choosing to do so anyway because they've decided that the outcome of their action (i.e. disabling the machine gun) is more important to the cause than their own individual safety, which while virtuous, could also be foolish depending on the situation (e.g. a infantryman courageously charging a machine gun nest when their side has a tank a few minutes away).
The whole point of life is to survive.
If you willingly go towards danger, you would have to either be a fool or brave.
The intentions of the person, why they go towards the danger, also play a role.
But acts of bravery can be undertaken by fools just as foolish actions can be undertaken by brave individuals.
Then we have the risk/reward factor playing into it...
Thus, I can see where the statement is coming from but there is too much context and exceptions for it too really be "all that" and will give it a "not really".
If you willingly go towards danger, you would have to either be a fool or brave.
The intentions of the person, why they go towards the danger, also play a role.
But acts of bravery can be undertaken by fools just as foolish actions can be undertaken by brave individuals.
Then we have the risk/reward factor playing into it...
Thus, I can see where the statement is coming from but there is too much context and exceptions for it too really be "all that" and will give it a "not really".
i won't deny, this is pretty true on some levels. but when the bullet is a .22LR i'll take the risk anyways and be a fool if the outcome is bad anyway.
I'd give it a six. Well, maybe I would give it a seven, but that would've been under some different circumstances. I know a guy who'd give it an eight, but, that guy doesn't know his stuff.
But six, I give it a six.
But six, I give it a six.
I take two possible meanings from it.
First: Courage in good measure makes a brave man; Courage in excessive measure makes a fool. Unfortunately the line between the two is often fuzzy.
The second is more literal: The foolish man, not knowing or believing that he can die, runs directly at the enemy and is killed; The brave man, knowing his mortality, pushes for tactical advantage and is thereby missed by the bullet that would have killed the foolish man.
Kinda right.
First: Courage in good measure makes a brave man; Courage in excessive measure makes a fool. Unfortunately the line between the two is often fuzzy.
The second is more literal: The foolish man, not knowing or believing that he can die, runs directly at the enemy and is killed; The brave man, knowing his mortality, pushes for tactical advantage and is thereby missed by the bullet that would have killed the foolish man.
Kinda right.
Of course you realize that the brave one is the fool that survived long enough for someone to have told someone else the story. How he survived was probably luck, i.e. being in the right place at the right time.
No, you're not foolish if you get shot. You ARE foolish if you charged a man with a gun from 20 feet away and no cover.