"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink (want a bet?)"
Short of violence and/or other behavior that most would consider animal abuse? Go figure that normal people exclude that as a valid solution to the 'problem'.
The limitations of your experience define the frame. Most animals like salt - but feel free to call PETA if I put a tiny dab inside a horse's lip.
If that horse has colic I will be cruel in order to get that horse to drink. The crueltry is relative. If you did think that unreasonably cruel to do to a horse with colic then you'd be deserving of a horse whipping.
"doesn't have the horse sense to stay out of the rain"
(clearly never owned horses, they will seek shelter from rain -[...]"
Careful you don't hurt your back lugging those goal posts around.
"Horse sense" is a synonym for "good sense" or "sound judgment".
The implication is that horses WILL stay out of the rain, and otherwise exhibit good sense.
[golf clap] Such a wit(ling).
...means exactly or nearly the same". In your desperate bounds from bank to bank you pass over the obvious. WILL != do. So the "implication" - is wrong. Hint: a little rain won't hurt you (cold will).
The point I tried to make earlier, which you ignored, is that common sense is not common - because it's counter intuitive. Your reaction reinforces that.
It'd be simpler, and more accurate, to just say "they don't possess the intelligence to act in their own best interest" don't you think? (of course that may raise the question of why "they" feel the need to use a more obscure choice of words)
You mis-understood the proverb completely; and it means the opposite of what you think.
I don't think so (you'll ruin you eyes squinting like that). Context is the point. Is it context that eludes you? Or just the meaning of "a thread" and the ability to follow it's tangents?
"you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" (try that with a fly trap).
Fine you win one, sort of... if you get to pick the species of fly in question.
If you think it's about scoring points you're doing two things wrong. I don't see it as winning points. I take it personally - if I test my opinion and find I'm wrong I consider that a win. No prizes for foolish pride. In this case I've won nothing. On the other-hand, maybe you could. Just a thought - it won't kill you.
And no, "I" don't get to pick the species of fly, that needs to be defined by the person trotting out the proverb like it is some valuable piece of wisdom instead of frontier gibberish passed off as a precept.
Yes certain species of fruit flies are attracted to the scent of vinegar. Other species not so much.
With the obvious exception of blow flies, horse flies, march flies, house flies, little house flies, cluster flies, meat flies, and most other flies found around homes and farms. I qualified my statement - fly traps. I never managed to catch any with honey (other insects, yes) if there was other traps nearby with vinegar. The second best mixture proved to be sugar and vinegar (better than just sugar).
That's not a unique finding. How hard is it to check, especially compared to a knee-jerk defence of what you've always assumed to be true but never tested?
It's demonstrably more truthful to say "you catch more flies with shit than with honey". The interesting question would be why do so many people trot out such proverbs like that which aren't self-supporting? The answer is often that the proverb is self-serving. They wish to make a proverb a precept. The devil is a gentleman whose speech is honeyed. The truth is not pretty and those that find it challenges their over-investment in a emotional belief resort to an ad-hominem argument, red herring, strawmen, or convoluted interpretations and appeals to authority in lieu of a valid argument.