What is an idiom stating that a smaller prohibition proves a larger prohibition exists?
Multi tool use
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I am looking for an idiom which means that if something minor is prohibited, it proves that a larger form of the same type of thing is also prohibited.
For example, if there is a sign in a store saying:
No Guns Allowed
Then, tactical nukes (even though they are not exactly guns) are also obviously not allowed.
So, I would say to someone who is trying to bring tactical nukes into the store:
It says no guns are allowed. [Idiom].
idioms idiom-requests
asked May 11 at 22:44
The ZThe Z
24938
add a comment |
I am looking for an idiom which means that if something minor is prohibited, it proves that a larger form of the same type of thing is also prohibited.
For example, if there is a sign in a store saying:
No Guns Allowed
Then, tactical nukes (even though they are not exactly guns) are also obviously not allowed.
So, I would say to someone who is trying to bring tactical nukes into the store:
It says no guns are allowed. [Idiom].
idioms idiom-requests
asked May 11 at 22:44
The ZThe Z
24938
1
It's not entirely clear that the concept exists.
– Hot Licks
May 11 at 23:46
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
– aparente001
May 12 at 5:05
Substitute the word "guns" with "weapons". The same solution would probably work for different scenarios.
– Mari-Lou A
May 12 at 5:55
@Mari-LouA But, my question is about the situation when that doesn't happen. Meaning the actual prohibition does not specify the broad category.
– The Z
May 12 at 18:32
add a comment |
I am looking for an idiom which means that if something minor is prohibited, it proves that a larger form of the same type of thing is also prohibited.
For example, if there is a sign in a store saying:
No Guns Allowed
Then, tactical nukes (even though they are not exactly guns) are also obviously not allowed.
So, I would say to someone who is trying to bring tactical nukes into the store:
It says no guns are allowed. [Idiom].
idioms idiom-requests
asked May 11 at 22:44
The ZThe Z
24938
I am looking for an idiom which means that if something minor is prohibited, it proves that a larger form of the same type of thing is also prohibited.
For example, if there is a sign in a store saying:
No Guns Allowed
Then, tactical nukes (even though they are not exactly guns) are also obviously not allowed.
So, I would say to someone who is trying to bring tactical nukes into the store:
It says no guns are allowed. [Idiom].
idioms idiom-requests
idioms idiom-requests
asked May 11 at 22:44
The ZThe Z
24938
asked May 11 at 22:44
The ZThe Z
24938
edited May 11 at 23:42
The Z
asked May 11 at 22:44
The ZThe Z
24938
asked May 11 at 22:44
The ZThe Z
24938
asked May 11 at 22:44
The ZThe Z
24938
24938
1
It's not entirely clear that the concept exists.
– Hot Licks
May 11 at 23:46
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
– aparente001
May 12 at 5:05
Substitute the word "guns" with "weapons". The same solution would probably work for different scenarios.
– Mari-Lou A
May 12 at 5:55
@Mari-LouA But, my question is about the situation when that doesn't happen. Meaning the actual prohibition does not specify the broad category.
– The Z
May 12 at 18:32
add a comment |
1
It's not entirely clear that the concept exists.
– Hot Licks
May 11 at 23:46
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
– aparente001
May 12 at 5:05
Substitute the word "guns" with "weapons". The same solution would probably work for different scenarios.
– Mari-Lou A
May 12 at 5:55
@Mari-LouA But, my question is about the situation when that doesn't happen. Meaning the actual prohibition does not specify the broad category.
– The Z
May 12 at 18:32
1
1
It's not entirely clear that the concept exists.
– Hot Licks
May 11 at 23:46
It's not entirely clear that the concept exists.
– Hot Licks
May 11 at 23:46
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
– aparente001
May 12 at 5:05
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
– aparente001
May 12 at 5:05
Substitute the word "guns" with "weapons". The same solution would probably work for different scenarios.
– Mari-Lou A
May 12 at 5:55
Substitute the word "guns" with "weapons". The same solution would probably work for different scenarios.
– Mari-Lou A
May 12 at 5:55
@Mari-LouA But, my question is about the situation when that doesn't happen. Meaning the actual prohibition does not specify the broad category.
– The Z
May 12 at 18:32
@Mari-LouA But, my question is about the situation when that doesn't happen. Meaning the actual prohibition does not specify the broad category.
– The Z
May 12 at 18:32
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f498114%2fwhat-is-an-idiom-stating-that-a-smaller-prohibition-proves-a-larger-prohibition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f498114%2fwhat-is-an-idiom-stating-that-a-smaller-prohibition-proves-a-larger-prohibition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
szHBIDo3dBuZF 9FWrIv5LYC yiYL2,qD,iK0msFkN,Qk
1
It's not entirely clear that the concept exists.
– Hot Licks
May 11 at 23:46
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
– aparente001
May 12 at 5:05
Substitute the word "guns" with "weapons". The same solution would probably work for different scenarios.
– Mari-Lou A
May 12 at 5:55
@Mari-LouA But, my question is about the situation when that doesn't happen. Meaning the actual prohibition does not specify the broad category.
– The Z
May 12 at 18:32