Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Slippery Slope Can No Longer Be Called a Fallacy
2012: “Come on, man. Gay couples should be able to get married so they can visit their loved ones in the hospital. Gay marriage won’t affect you at all. Only paranoid bigots believe ‘we’re coming for your children.'”
2022: “What’s a woman? Only a biologist could answer that. And if you disagree, you’ll be banned from social media. Also, we’re totally grooming six-year-olds to join the LGBT Alphabet Community, and if you object, you’re an ignorant, hateful bigot. Oh, and if you try to remove gay pr0n from the school library, you’re a bigot and we hate you.”
Aren’t you glad the Bush-Republican Party made the tactical decision to desist from the “divisive” Culture War and focus on Important Economic Issues, wars abroad, and neglecting the border?
Published in General
Even though they don’t know the plural of “fish” is “fish.”
I’m pretty sure that’s how it is in the original. Blame the translator.
But I’ve seen that in English a number of times myself.
They’ve already been working on that for years. Next they’ll be saying a quarter of Americans are closeted necrophiliacs.
We will have to defend the honor of our great-grandparents!
Loaves, etc.
And requiring that at least 19% of movie and television actors, and the characters they play, must be necrophiliacs.
And preserve their right to vote in future elections.
Exactly. “Loaves and fishes” is in the Bible. Well the King James version anyway (the only version I endorse). For all I know the various newfangled revised versions probably call it “Fish and chips.” Hmmppph.
And the dead will be portrayed as loving participants.
King James is not at all a standard for acceptable modern usage.
If you have more than one guppy, you have several fish. If you have more than one species, then you have several types of fishes.
I’ve seen that usage and don’t disagree.
Kind of like “The English Patient.” That really was a pretty good book until that point, and then it slid into a Paul Auster-like post-modern nihilism. (For those that didn’t read the book, near the end the English Patient left the woman in a desert cave to go seek help after she was severely injured in a plane crash. He has sex with the woman after he returned to the cave and found she had died several days earlier. So the theory is not so far fetched.)
So if a person dies the day before their 18th birthday can they be carnally known the day after?
The woman “teaching” my wife to prepare for child birth kept insisting that we eat the placenta and suggested many recipes. I scoured Texas statutes to see if that could be considered cannibalism. No such statute that I could find. I’m pretty sure that necrophilia and cannibalism are both contrary to common law, but I doubt any prosecutor is willing to invoke the common law for prosecution.
Who said anything about “modern”? I am a Conservative. The Revised Standard and all the other bastardizations have edited the poetry out. Instead of “through a glass darkly,” they say things like “In a mirror dimly” and worse. Do they not realize that original expression is already ensconced in Western Culture in literature and movies? Harummppph.
And get off my lawn.
Was the book anti-semitic? I heard the movie was anti-semitic.
I don’t recall anti-semitism in either, but I read the book in 1997 and don’t remember that.
Andrew Klavan once reviewed the English Patient and felt that it had some anti-semitism.
In many corners of our cultural elite, anti-Semitism is considered a collective virtue.
“Fishes” to me refers to many fish of different species. What sayeth Webster? It gives “fish” or “fishes” as valid choices for the plural of “fish”. I prefer to use “fishes” because it gives a false sense of erudition and endocrinologists have to seen as erudite.
Fishes is Biblical.
Luke 9:16 “Then He took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, He blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.” KJV
However, we also have the New International Version: “Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, He gave thanks and broke them.”
Bible versions are easily compared at http://www.biblegateway.com
Older versions (Wycliffe, 1588 Geneva, Darby, Douay) use “fishes” and newer ones, “fish”.
“Fishes” is yet a commonplace usage.
From Hoyt Axton, Joy to the World (1971):
“Joy….to the world.// All…the boys and girls! // Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea //Joy to you and me!
QED
When I say or read “a school of fish moving as one,” I think of a school of a single type of fish moving as one. But when I read or write an underwater scene of many schools of fishes, each school of a different type and color and sizes of fish, in a vast seascape, all around everywhere you look, well, “schools of fish” just doesn’t describe the underwater diversity as well.