this may be a tad long, but it's worth it, I promise.
this is, hands-down, the best missionary letter I have ever recieved.
from a dear friend I went to high school with.
"concerning the fish question,
In considering the objective piscicity of a fish, fish-shaped object, or other nautical referencing object (heretofore known as fish), the question of perceptive integrity must be taken into account. A subjective categorization cannot unambiguously determine the intrinsic nature of a fish, whether fishlike or otherwise. Prudence would dictate that we preserve the delicate kingdom of fishhood.
The problem at heart is in the aggregious gaps in the fish paradigm. We cannot justly say that a few unfishlike tendencies cam make a fish not a fish, nor can we say that a few fishlike tendencies make something a fish. Germaine to our discussion, a few unfishlike tendencies, such as being stiff and made out of wheat, does not inequouically make a goldfish not a fish.
It would be quite inhumane to base the life and happiness of an otherwise innocent fish on the subjective perception of the fishiness of said fish. It would be quite illogical to argue that subjective perception of fishiness is indivisibly toed to objective appraisal of fishiness. The departure from prototypical fishiness can not reasonably be answered on the heads of the goldfish. Any attempt to victimize an innocent fish would be morally wrong.
the impossibility of unambiguous fish assessment has let to many other fish related cases: whale v. fish, squid v. fish, tadpole v. fish, creepy weird deep sea fish v. fish. All cases have ruled in favor of the protection and conservation of said fish and such nautical creatures. We have no indisputable reason to reasonably differentiate between the plights of said fish-related court cases and the argument of goldfish currently under question.
To use a further analogy, saying goldfish are not fish because they are crackery is like saying a pine tree is not a tree because it does not have leaves. I could also be evoking of saying bald people are not people because they don't have hair. Such reactionary thinking must be discontinued if all fish are ever to hold hands in the circle of brotherhood.
In summary, you cannot unambiguously determinate the piscicity of goldfish under our current paradigm. The interests of goldfish must be protected.
I repeat myself:
fish is fish, no exceptions."
I about died laughing. I believe the argument was over whether or not we should consider goldfish crackers to be fish. I do believe he won.
Fish is fish, guys.