Reply #60: what the fuck are you on about *now*?

[iverglas]

You liked my statement:

"A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed."

... which was a sarcastic response to the stupid assertion that banning a breed of dog was akin to calling for people to be killed ... because you chose to interpret it as referring to some specific individual identified dog:

"The operative word here is "a". "A" - singular - case by case, if you will. "A" dog. Not the entire breed."

Your claim as to what I meant, as purportedly determined by you based on my use of the indefinite article, was not only utterly unfounded and patently false, but bizarrely irrelevant.

The obvious point, unfortunately buried too impossibly deep for you in my statement, it seems, was that DOGS ARE NOT PEOPLE. It doesn't matter a pinch of poop whether I refer to "a dog" or "dogs" in order to make that point. A dog is not a person, and dogs are not people.

No matter how many dogs we decided to talk about, they would not ever be people. Dogs don't suddenly become people when gathered in a crowd of 10 or more, and a dog all by its lonesome isn't a person.

So there is no bleeding way in the whole bleeding universe that either a requirement that all dogs of any breed or breeds be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing all dogs of that breed or those breeds OR a requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog is in ANY way "like" a demand that human beings be killed.

I just decided to get all agreeable and write the statement so that it couldn't be misrepresented as easily you could understand it more easily:

A requirement that all dogs of a particular breed be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing all dogs of that breed, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed. (sarcasm still dripping)

There is no difference between the two versions of my statement. They are both -- and were both intended to be -- utter nonsense.


"Let's claim that were were being sarcastic! That's the ticket!"

But wait. It's the statement that the statement was made sarcastically that has you in a tizzy?? (You say now, despite your previous claim that I somehow slipped up and made a true statement by saying that banning "a dog" was equivalent to calling for human beings to be killed?)

You're actually standing here in public with your handle clearly visible on your post, for the world to see, claiming that you believe that when I said

"A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed."

you believed I was stating something that *I* believed?

Even though the entire passage went like this (the boldface representing the statement I was replying to) --

We don't generally banish an entire breed because a few owners have caused their dogs to be mean. That reasoning is akin to the worst racial and ethinc biases. "A purple person committed murder! Kill all purple people!"
Yes indeed. A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed.
When will someone give me a pair of those funny spectacles? I'm sure that apples really are orange, and oranges really are red; if only I had the right prescription, I'd be able to see the evidence in front of my eyes.

-- ??

Well you have my deepest sympathies. I can see how red your face is from here, even with my plain old trifocals. How embarrassing for you, indeed.

But returning to our sheep: I do hope you understand by now (in reference to my actual response to what you actually said) that no, "a" was not the operative word in anything.

Dogs are not human beings. Prohibiting individuals from acquiring dogs (or a dog -- you see, it just makes no difference) of a certain breed is not equivalent to calling for the murder of any human beings at all.

And only a very confused person ... or a very sarcastic person ... would say it was.