Was to be

It's okay by me. [Y]

I think the meaning is like this:

In order to be (considered by others) nice one had to act like a fool.

In order to pass for a nice person one had to agree to be taken for a ride.

Anton

Hi,
To be nice was to be a fool.
To be nice was to be taken for a ride.

In this kind of sentence, the second part is normally the consequence of the first part.

Consider a simpler example.
eg When I was fighting

Ant_222I think the meaning is like this:

In order to be (considered by others) nice one had to act like a fool.

In order to pass for a nice person one had to agree to be taken for a ride.

Anton

Not quite.

To be nice was to be a fool.

~ It would have been foolish to be nice.
~ Being nice would not hav

AnonymousTo be nice was to be a fool.

In the same pattern, can we write: To be nice was to be taken for a ride.

I can't tell if the concensus is thumbs up or thumbs down.
In retrospect, I'll say "Yes, you may write it," and "No, it's not the same pattern."

If you're nice, you're stupid. If you're stupid, you'll be taken advantage of.

It depends how narrowly you interpret "same pattern". To me the pattern is

infinitive + linking verb + infinitive

and both sentences "have the same pattern".

For me, even the following has the same pattern, because I'm not thinking "semantics", only "syntax".

To name the refrigerator is to cook the lamp.

CJ

I agree, Jim. I'm thinking of a pattern of logical operations.

Dare we wonder what sort of pattern the OP had in mind?

Gosh, you're quick when you happen to be on the same thread!

CJ

Unfortunately, a rare happenstance.

CalifJimTo name the refrigerator is to cook the lamp.

Geez! I thought I smelled something burning!

CalifJimNot quite.

Thank you, CJ.

It is interesting to note that the Russian verb corresponding to "take for a ride" has the same figurative meaning to it. And still it evaded me.

Anton