Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

biopticstream t1_jbhqcc3 wrote

LMAO, the city of Toronto putting up a sign to limit barking at a dog park? 🤣 That's some next level pettiness right there. I mean, it's a dog park for crying out loud, what do they expect? Silent pooches? 🐶

3

JiminyDickish t1_jbhsq4r wrote

The sign specifically refers to "excessive" barking and to please be respectful, it does not say anything about keeping your dog silent.

As someone who has had to live next to *excessively* barking dogs, this sign is totally reasonable and I think it's a shame it was taken down.

8

Seantwist9 t1_jbhw29q wrote

It does actually. “Do not allow your dog to bark and disturb the neighborhood”

4

JiminyDickish t1_jbhx7h8 wrote

And what does the next sentence say?

Let's take the sign in its totality, the way it was meant to be read, and not engage our selective outrage at a single sentence taken out of context. Do you honestly believe that sign is saying owners are in violation if their dog barks a single time?

11

Seantwist9 t1_jbhy34w wrote

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