I think I actually became stupider when I read this:
I know that very few people have the gift of extemporaneous speaking, but GOD! I hope to hell that Reid realized how dumb it sounded as soon as it left his mouth, and was thinking about it the rest of the day.
“‘Less teeth than a toothless tiger’? What the fuck was I thinking? Good going, Harry.”
This is the kind of metaphor that burns skin like… that’s like a rabbit that… has fewer brain cells than… I can’t even DELIBERATELY think of a metaphor that dumb! And I’m trying!
The practice mentioned in this thread is as annoying as a really annoying thread, like the thread that stitches the dickhole shut on a crappy pair of shorts.
You mean like the supermarket isle that says, “Ten items or less.” Well, it doesn’t really bother me much; then I saw sign that said: “No more than 10 items.” That seems like a good way to say it. But is this really about stupid metaphors?
Number 1. His error had nothing to do with metaphor.
2. It was about count vs. non-count nouns.
3. Before you pit, learn your grammar.
4. If the brain cells of rabbits concern you so much, then get out of rhetoric and go into zoology.
“The proposal has less teeth than a toothless tiger” is indeed a metaphor; while literally true, it glosses over the fact that proposals do not literally have teeth in any case, and instead speaks of proposals as though they ought to have teeth.
“This metaphor is as lame as a very lame thing on crutches with a stone in its shoe”, on the other hand, is a simile.
It also glosses over the tautology. Less teeth than a toothless goldfish would be equally accurate. If he had said the proposal was “a toothless tiger” that would be a perfectly good metaphor, but as it is it’s just as awkward as a fart in church.