Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Seantwist9 t1_jbhzlcn 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

“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