Jun 30, 2020
A Fish a Bird Fall in Love Riddle: Answer to Viral Question Explained
This news has been received from: Heavy.com
All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.
Getty Can a bird and a fish fall in love?
A new viral “riddle” has been circulating on social media. This one asks how a fish and a bird who fall in love might end up having a life together. Read on to learn more about this question, including the answer.
The viral riddle that’s making the rounds is typically worded like this:
A fish and a bird could fall in love, but where would they live?
Or it might be worded this way:
If a bird and a fish were to fall in love, where would they live?
Even though some social media posts are phrasing this like it’s a riddle, it’s really not technically a riddle at all.The question is more of a philosophical saying that prompts a discussion. In fact, if it sounds familiar it might be because it’s a quote from a movie.Here’s the Answer to the Viral ‘Riddle’
There are several possible answers to this question. One is that they may be in love but they can never build a home together.
The question may also sound familiar to you because it’s a quote from Drew Barrymore in the movie Ever After when she said: “A bird may love a fish…but where would they live?” The answer in the movie was: “Then I shall have to make you wings.”
A Bird May Love a FishFrom the movie "Ever After" Drew Barrymore and her classic line.2015-09-13T16:24:35Z
The question is asking the listener to consider just how different their two worlds are. Is there ever a time when love is simply not enough? The bird lives in the sky and the trees, while the fish lives in the water. They have two very different worlds. How could they live together even if they wanted to?
On a Quora discussion, Bill Huebner wrote:
Such a pairing would only be possible within the realm of human imagination. But we’re capable of not only imagining something such as “love” that transcends species, we’re capable of putting it into pixels and movement.
He then shared this video illustrating the question:
The Mind's Eye – 07 Love Found (Short Circutz)This is the animation "Love Found" from the early computer animation compilation "The Mind's Eye." In 1990 Odyssey Productions gathered together shorts and demo reels from hundreds of artists working in the fledgling field of computer animation. These captivating computer generated videos were combined with an original score to give the world a look at the future of animation. Eventually these shorts would be licensed by YTV in Canada to be aired as "Short Circutz" in place of commercials. Unlike later productions, The Mind's Eye was only released on VHS tape and Laserdisc. This is the higher quality Laserdisc release, carefully digitized.2010-02-25T11:29:19Z
Another person, Mei Douthitt, suggested: “There’s no way they could live together and survive, although the fish (depending on species) could jump into the air, and the bird (depending on species) could dive into the water for short periods.”
Another popular answer, also shared on Quora by John Young, reads:
Air and water meet intimately in the clouds, in rain and mist and dew. They meet in the bubbles and babbles of babbling brooks and the seafoam where the waves meet the shore. They meet in the storm and the rainbow that follows. Air and water are mates, and they meet like lovers throughout nature. They meet in our own nature.
If a bird and fish were to fall in love, they would live harmoniously where water and air mingle: in a place of quiet pools and slow flowing water. Dappled sunlight would pass through the sprays of leaves overhead to dance on the surface.
And life would be a glorious thing, there where bird and fish celebrate the glories of love, there in the flash of their momentary lives, there in the only truth that lives in this universe of illusion and disillusion.
If you want to see a real video of a bird appearing to fall in love with a fish, it actually has happened. Here’s one shared by the Facebook page I Love Birds.
Perhaps this video is the true answer to the riddle.
This is just one of many riddles that are circulating on sites like Facebook and Instagram during the coronavirus pandemic. If you’ve seen the “How Many Ducks Do You See?” riddle and were stumped, check out Heavy’s explanation here. If you ran into the “I Met a Man on London Bridge” riddle and have no idea what the man’s name is, you can find the answer in Heavy’s story here. The answer to the “You Enter a Bedroom” riddle is here, and the answer to the “Can You Open the Lock Using These Clues?” riddle is here.
If you’re looking for the answer to the “Hotel with 100 Rooms” riddle, it’s here. The answer to the “State Without an A” riddle is here. The answer to the “How many letters are in the answer?” riddle is here. And the answer to the “Penny Has 5 Children” riddle is here.
READ NEXT: Daily COVID-19 Updates
News Source: Heavy.com
Tags: breaking news social media breaking news social media breaking news 5 fast facts crime celebrities politics nfl basketball ufc college football soccer golf wags baseball television celebs music movies google apple android microsoft apps smartphones news xbox one ps4 mobile pc games accessories disney plus live sports streaming shopping
It has become clear ‘Donald Trump is a threat to national security’: Ex-White House official
Every day, normal presidents would meet with their intelligence staff and hear about the threats against Americans. MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace said that obviously, after 9-11, it was even more critical to understand how to protect Americans at home and abroad.
“Normal presidents start every day before they meet with people like me in the press office, they meet with people like you,” Wallace said to Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Advisor under President Barack Obama. “They want to know threats about Americans…and the standard isn’t after the attack isn’t after the attack is successful. You failed if that’s when you walk into the Oval with intel. The standard is when you’re strategizing how to muster the forces diplomatically, militarily, and putting the president in as part of the national security team. To me, the buried lead here is Donald Trump isn’t part of protecting America’s national security.”
Rhodes explained that based on what he has read about the Russian bounty scandal, the information gleaned that is public is already much more specific than some intelligence that he would get with Obama. He noted that even vague information that couldn’t be confirmed would make its way to Obama’s desk if it was about a threat to Americans and U.S. personnel abroad.
“It was not unusual that we would get briefed on threats to personnel,” he explained. “And what do you do, you immediately call your military commanders, your intelligence community, and you say, ‘What can we do to protect our troops in harm’s way.’ It is astonishing to me, Nicole, that the best defense that this White House can muster is that Donald Trump didn’t read his briefing when we’re not even just talking about the [Presidential Daily Briefing].”
Rhodes explained that in the reports, “the wire” is referenced, which is an intelligence report that goes to thousands of people.
“It makes reference to the fact that we have corroborations with financial transfers, it has reference to reports to allies,” he said of the report. “So, clearly thousands of people have consumed this information, think it’s important, think our troops’ lives may be in danger, and think, frankly, some troops may have been killed based on reports and Donald Trump is doing nothing other than calling this a hoax, lying about whether or not he received this information, and not, you know, being derelict, frankly, in his duty as commander in chief.”
He went on to call Trump a “threat to national security,” and to the lives of the American people.
“To walk people through it, we would come in the first meeting every day for President Obama was in the Oval Office, to review the Presidential Daily Briefing,” said Rhodes. “The assumption before we walked into the office is that we had all already read it. So, we actually didn’t have somebody come and read it aloud. We had somebody come and answer questions from us about the information to help inform what the president should do to follow up. And it is just astonishing to me here that you have an adversary of the United States, this is a bombshell piece of information, paying bounties on the heads of U.S. troops, that within minutes of getting that information, there was ant process set up to protect our troops.”
He explained that there wasn’t a phone call from Trump threatening Russian President Vladimir Putin with consequences, or a call to the Taliban, which Trump was working to negotiate a peace treaty with. In fact, since Trump was given the information about Russia putting a bounty on the heads of American soldiers, he’s invited Putin to the United States for the G7 meeting and said that Putin must be invited to rejoin it.
“The president of the United States recently announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Germany, which makes sense to absolutely no one, except Vladimir Putin, who very much wants to see that happen,” said Rhodes. “So, he’s both putting our troops at risk, and he seems to continue to be pursuing a foreign policy agenda that only makes sense from the perspective of Moscow. That’s just the plain reality of what’s happening, Nicole, that’s staring us in the face. It is deeply, deeply profoundly abnormal.”
See the full discussion below: