2007-10-02 14:19:23 · 9 answers · asked by CherryCheri 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
directly it would be little knowlege and large voice cuz that would be like some crazy person going into a mall and opening fire on everyone. but indirectly it would be the weak one with alot of knowedge because he would be smart enough to find ways around his weakness and be more sneaky about it.
2007-10-02 14:26:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fascinating question. As St. Anger points out, you only need to look to the president of the U.S. to see the danger of a little knowledge combined with large voice. The danger of much knowledge and weakness is more subtle, but possibly more dangerous. You may have all the knowledge in the world, but you only get one vote--the same as any ignoramus. I don't remember who said it, but this sentence is much quoted: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing." If we become demoralized in the face of all the ignorance around us, we do nothing to stem the tide and the fools have their way. As long as we are alive and aware, we have to exercise what power we do have for the common good.
2007-10-02 21:34:02 · answer #2 · answered by ambigon 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
everybody has a weakness. but im going to assume you mean a wealth of knowledge with a small voice.
little knowledge big voice is more dangerous.
you dont need to yell and bully your point to get it across. a wealth of knowledge with a small voice is the way to go. people know the truth when they hear it, even if it is softly spoken.
2007-10-02 22:45:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first one.
2007-10-02 21:26:34 · answer #4 · answered by Uncle Remus 54 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a little knowledge with a big voice because the big voice would sound like they are courageous but they are really just a poser, what really counts is being smart.
2007-10-02 21:43:17 · answer #5 · answered by Lolgirl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are equally dangerous. The first through ignorance and the second through inaction against the ignorance.
2007-10-02 21:42:40 · answer #6 · answered by ravenscardarkhope 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This 2nd statement is not the reciprocal of the 1st. They are not equal thus have no meaning in the context it was framed.
2007-10-02 21:28:13 · answer #7 · answered by Future 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask president Bush for the answer.
2007-10-02 21:24:52 · answer #8 · answered by St.Anger 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the man who Knows says nothing!
2007-10-03 00:35:29 · answer #9 · answered by dot 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋