Would it be redundant to start a campfire by rubbing 2 sticks together that were already on fire?

Answer 1

now, how would you light said stick on fire without a larger fire in the first place? It takes a lot of heat from a large fire to light a decent sized stick that could in turn be used to start a campfire.

What if a plane crashed on a deserted island and caught on fire. If you lit the sticks on fire to start a campfire, even if you did so by unnecessarily rubbing them together, it wouldn't be redundant because you would get a campfire. Interesting....................

Answer 2

That would indeed be an instance of redundancy--IF those two sticks were on fire in a campfire already.

If the two sticks were not part of a campfire and if there was no campfire in sight, then rubbing them together wouldn't be redundant, just stupid.

In other words: If there were only two sticks on fire but no proper campfire, using those sticks to light a campfire would be the initial act of making a campfire. If you rubbed the two on-fire sticks together, that would be retarded, but it wouldn't be redundant if their purpose was to create something that was not yet in existence (i.e., the campfire).

Now, if you were using the on-fire sticks to create fire, then, yes, that would be redundant.

Make sense?

Answer 3

Redundant means repetetive, usually used to refer to cases of repetition in wording. I don't think you quite grasp the accepted usage of the word.
It would be ______ to start a campfire by rubbing 2 sticks together that were already on fire...
Words you could use here that would be contextually correct would be "pointless" and "stupid."

And yes, it would be pointless and stupid to try to start a fire with friction when you already had fire to begin with.

Answer 4

Never mind redundant..... More like crazy.... You would most likely set yourself on fire.

Answer 5

Silly.

Answer 6

I don't know about redundant.... but you can bet they'll be hot!