Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Desdemona1231 t1_j9pgg8l wrote

If California did it, many people would post differently.

I think it’s a reasonable idea. I worry about what happens to dogs in an accident.

11

koavf OP t1_j9pgmtf wrote

I grandma had wheels, she would be a bicycle.

−4

Desdemona1231 t1_j9pgqmo wrote

Ageist.

I guess you don’t care about dog safety.

−2

zembriski t1_j9q4s0v wrote

You didn't read the thing, did you? The headline isn't enough to understand what's ridiculous about this. It would require a passenger at all times to supervise the dog; but it only requires that based on a grammatical interpretation of it. In short, it's another law that lets cops cherry pick when, why, and whom they choose to harass.

−5

Desdemona1231 t1_j9q50qy wrote

I read it. That’s unrealistic. I said the IDEA was reasonable.

I guess you didn’t read that part, did you? 😂

2

zembriski t1_j9q5kdh wrote

I mean, PART of the idea is reasonable. I'm just pointing out that the idea taken in its entirety is absurd, and give the choice between assuming you're an absurdist and that you didn't read the article, I guessed the latter. Didn't consider that it was just an imprecise comment, but I'm aware that I'm usually too literal. I have a hard time with interpreting intent when it seems in conflict with the logical implications of words; I've been told it's a problem, and I'm trying to work on it. Sorry.

−2