The exception proves the rule is accurate I think. You need to read proves as ‘tests’, like in a proving ground. This is how the phrase came about - the exception tests the rule.
Never met a swan, but I did have a full grown goose fracture my wrist with her wing. (My fault --leave nesting mothers alone) Try explaining the term “flogged” to ER people.
But that statement, itself, is a cliche . . . so wouldn’t it have to apply to itself as well? So “For every cliche, there does not exist a cliche that is the opposite.”
A philosophy professor should have known that.
So often, when a person dies, someone will say “He’s in a better place.”
Oh really? Where is this place, and how do you know about it? And how do you know he isn’t in a worse place?
Actually, it originated as a legal term that means that “the explicit statement of an exception proves that a rule to the contrary prevails otherwise.”
“Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.”
I know what they’re getting at. But technically speaking, slow is slow and fast is fast.
bolding mine
[Ned’s Mom]“We’ve tried nothin’, and we’re all out of ideas!”[/NM]
In fact you can have your cake (temporarily) and eat it too.
You can’t, however, eat your cake and have it too.
Unless you take the meaning of “have” to be the “eat” one.
I’m really not sure what the thrill of having a cake would be, anyway. Am I showing off the decorating? Admiring the sheen of the frosting? Letting it go stale so I can beat people athwart the head with it?
“Crime never pays”. Blatantly wrong.
Cecil did a column on that IIRC. It was originally a legal expression which read, in full : “the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted”. Meaning, “if a rule has exceptions, then the rule applies to *everything *except the stated and defined exceptions”.
See also, “Cheaters never prosper,” “Winners never cheat,” and other related crap.
This chestnut I paticularly loathe. Two can live cheaper together than two single people’s individual totals, but not “as cheap as one.”
My friend Jennie co-bought a house with her sister and brother in law, with the idea they would fix the basement into an apartment for Jennie. (After a few month of reno they opted out of helping, and tried not to pay for the expenses the renovations to the basement cost and they were paying 50% of the costs, and reaped 50% of the increase in value.) They used the above saying as rationale for dividing expenses for the house 50/50. Gas heat, hydro, water, all 50-50 because* two can live as cheap as one*. She got majorly screwed on the whole deal, because she didn’t take the same number of showers, she was always in the same room as herself for lighting, ran a toaster oven and hotplate rather than a stove, etc etc. But every house expense was vetted by the committe of three, and she lost every battle. They wouldnt turn up the heat for her, because “our bills are high enough without turning up the heat in the day” (she worked evenings). But over and over they dragged out that “two can live as cheap as one” for rationale as to why she in a one bedroom basement apartment who shared half the basement with the laundry room the whole house used…she payed 50%.
IMHO she lived a meager existence for two years in the cold and dark before the couple bought a house without warning her and put the house up on the market. But this isnt the pit, and it was 15 years ago so thats all I will say about Jennie’s sister and brother in law.
Violence never solves anything.
It may not be the best option in all cases but it’s pretty damn effective when properly applied.
To expand on what Cisco said,
Maybe he wasn’t like all the others. Maybe he needed to be raised a bit differently. How does she mean “raised,” anyway? Living conditions? Discipline? Attention paid? Being “one of a rather large number of siblings” takes its toll to start with, and perhaps he got lost in the shuffle. Were the others outstanding, or was he the spotlighted Bad Kid[sup]TM[/sup]?
(I’m not pressing for answers, just speculating.)
That statement is not a cliche. There’s a difference between a generalization and a cliche, and the professor’s statement was the former.
I hate that one too.
“In that case, I’ll tell the entire military to go home. Those marines especially are going to be upset when they learn the truth about violence.”
Right. The validy of “a penny saved is a penny earned” is one of the first things you learn in a corporate finance class. If you’re trying to model two investment decisions so you can pick between them and find that one increases revenue by a penny and one cost reduces by a penny, you have to realize they’re exactly equivalent.
In the real world or even in Week 2 of “intro to corporate finance” there are risks and questions of timing but it’s fundamental to realize that they’re equivalent cash flows or that “a penny saved is a penny earned”.
I’ve heard more than one person contend that a penny saved was better, because the penny earned would be taxed, and therefore represented less than a penny in assets.
Well businesses are taxed on net profits, so whether you save a penny in expenses or earn a penny in revenue you’re increasing incremental net income by a penny. But in a personal income situation, sure you need to take into account tax treatment.
Gah. Can’t remember the name, but there was a comedian who had a great routine about this one.
(paraphrasing) "I try to live each day like it was my last. I start by crying every morning: “Why me? Whyyy? And I’m still so young!” and then I spend the rest of my day calling my family and friends. “Mom? Mom? I-- I just wanted to tell you… I love you! sob”