[110 / 15 / ?]
Quoted By: >>43345823 >>43345837 >>43345849 >>43345865 >>43345920 >>43345922 >>43346047 >>43346135 >>43346323 >>43346599 >>43346625 >>43346804 >>43352755 >>43353192 >>43353799 >>43358041
Why is a "double-edged sword" considered a bad thing?
Yes, I know a stronger opponent can potentially push it back at you, but didn't practically all swords in most of Europe have two edges for over a thousand years? Why would that be the standard if it was a major flaw that got exploited frequently?
Apparently the benefit outweighed the risk, or else they would've stopped doing it, since making two edges requires more work.
But the way the phrase is used figuratively, it's like holy shit you madman you're going to suffer for this, when really an actual double-edged sword is nothing special.
Yes, I know a stronger opponent can potentially push it back at you, but didn't practically all swords in most of Europe have two edges for over a thousand years? Why would that be the standard if it was a major flaw that got exploited frequently?
Apparently the benefit outweighed the risk, or else they would've stopped doing it, since making two edges requires more work.
But the way the phrase is used figuratively, it's like holy shit you madman you're going to suffer for this, when really an actual double-edged sword is nothing special.
