Did you intend to say, "Dogs are treated as children by some people?" Biologically, this statement doesn't fly. But I agree that it is pure evil, especially when the truckers are only standing up for the right to choose whether a non-vaccine (it does not protect against 'catching the disease' , and likely doesn't lessen symptoms either) can be forced on them. The threats to claim "Child endangerment" are a greater evil, and will be greater still if the brownshirts follow through.
Did you intend to say, "Dogs are treated as children by some people?" Biologically, this statement doesn't fly.
What statement? "Dogs are treated as children by some people?" That is merely a description of objective, observable reality rather than a biological statement; so it can't biologically fly or not fly IMO.
Did you intend to say, "Dogs are treated as children by some people?" Biologically, this statement doesn't fly. But I agree that it is pure evil, especially when the truckers are only standing up for the right to choose whether a non-vaccine (it does not protect against 'catching the disease' , and likely doesn't lessen symptoms either) can be forced on them. The threats to claim "Child endangerment" are a greater evil, and will be greater still if the brownshirts follow through.
It's clearly a metaphor likening how dog owners are emotionally invested in their dogs as parents are to their children.
I intended to imply that some people love their dog as much as they love a child.
That's what I thought. makes sense in some ways.
What statement? "Dogs are treated as children by some people?" That is merely a description of objective, observable reality rather than a biological statement; so it can't biologically fly or not fly IMO.