3 ms·

It kind of sounds like you have a very specific context in mind when you say this. Mind explaining?

• justinjlynn 9y ago
  Not at all. What I mean to imply is that simply because someone or something aids one in the fight against another doesn't mean that that particular someone or something is friendly towards one. At best, one can infer that, at least for the moment, one isn't that person or thing's most valuable target at the time of aid. It might be a cynical way of looking at things but it helps to distinguish between that which is actually your friend, knowingly sacrificing something of itself for one, and your temporary and unwitting ally ready to turn on one the moment the, by chance or strategy, existing target is eliminated. To elaborate, the situation described in the article is a case report. In this case, the gamble paid off and the man was cured. However, we rarely hear about the cases in which this gamble was lost and the experimental treatment did not result in a successful return to health. It's human to want to belong and to have others come to our aid. Sadly, it's also human to be thanking the cat for killing mice one day and then cursing it for eating our goldfish the next.
  • penpapersw 9y ago
    Right. But that's implied by the fact that the phrase exists.