Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Seantwist9 t1_jbhy34w wrote

Reply to comment by JiminyDickish in City of Toronto puts up sign limiting barking at dog park, removes it following public scrutiny by nimobo

I don’t believe that no. It still however says keep your dog silent. Ain’t nobody outraged, and your using selective outrage wrong

It says do not do x. y will not be tolerated.

−6

JiminyDickish t1_jbhzg7x wrote

>It still however says keep your dog silent.

It literally does not.

​

>Ain’t nobody outraged

The entire article is about people who are.

​

>It says do not do x. y will not be tolerated.

x = let your dog bark and disturb the neighborhood (aka, bark excessively)

y = barking excessively

8

Seantwist9 t1_jbhzlcn wrote

“Do not allow your dog to bark and disturb the neighborhood” means keep your dog silent

−3

JiminyDickish t1_jbi04vc wrote

Not in the English language, no.

If it were "bark OR disturb the neighborhood," then yes.

But because it's "Do not let your dog bark AND [therefore] disturb the neighborhood," a dog must bark to the point that it disturbs the neighborhood, thus satisfying the conjunction.

A single bark or handful of barks does not constitute a disturbance, therefore the sign does not prohibit it.

What constitutes a disturbance is open to interpretation, but it's pretty obvious that it would be more than just a few barks here and there.

One might even use the word excessive to define it. Like this sign literally did.

5

Seantwist9 t1_jbi0h4y wrote

A single bark absolutely can disturb the neighborhood. Thus your dog can’t bark.

I didn’t say it prohibits it. I said it says keep your dog silent

The sign did both, it said no barking. And excessive barking is prohibited

And yes in the English language

−6

JiminyDickish t1_jbi1bjq wrote

>A single bark absolutely can disturb the neighborhood.

Toronto noise ordinances state that the barking must be "persistent," so literally, no, you're 100% wrong. Will you admit it though? Can't wait to find out

Canada: Barking for more than 10 minutes constitutes excessive noise

7

Seantwist9 t1_jbi1xeo wrote

Notice how disturbed wasn’t in your rebuttal? That’s cause your confused. I specifically said disturb because we’re talking about disturb, what you just did is a strawman.

So while it’s possible I’m wrong ( I’m not) this comment does not have anything to do with what I just said

I’ve been disturbed by the roofers working on my apartments roof, that doesn’t mean it’s illegal

−2