At the risk of overworking this (kek, that point was passed an hour ago), I personally do not think bluewhiteandred provided an analogy, but rather, described the situation in its reality.

Fwiw, an analogy is "a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification". bwr wasn't comparing anything to anything else. He was just stating some (imo) obvious and important points about the reality of how the system should work and WHY the dog analogy isn't applicable.

Since I was tagged, I'll hop back in in a bit of a tangential way

The issue this post is trying to get at is really judges being accountable perhaps for incorrect rulings

If someone commits a crime and is proven guilty, the judge should be able to be impartial and simply mete out a sentence that fits the crime and the offense prescribed by law (?)

So when we have rogue judges that don't do this, rather than them perhaps being liable for the crime the criminal commits (which is kind of unfair as it is out of their control), they should still be able to be held to account for objectively wrong rulings where the sentence does not correspond tp the crime

I don't 100% know how things work but I presume our legal system gives judges the ability to let criminals off without punishment even when they are clearly guilty. That was probably intended for "Christian judges in a Christian nation" who could be merciful towards criminals who showed signs of being truly sorry. It is obviously functioning as an exploited gap in our system that is being abused to let off unrepentant criminals who reoffend without any remorse.

If that's the case, then rather than the proposal in the OP that makes the judge liable for crimes of a criminal let off (unfair tp the judge), the judge should probably not be able to let a criminal off but must impartially sentence them to whatever penalty is prescribed by law. So it sounds like we may need a law that requires judges to do this. Then judges would be subject to this law as an incentive to punish criminals.

I suppose in this scenario jury nullification could function as the merciful out for truly repentant criminals, but it might also function as an exploitable option.

Alternatively we may just need more people to be street saavy and watch their back for some of this violent crime, and we clearly need to replace the judges with good men (any efforts under way to do so?)

Not sure if that helps the convo

Ok. kek. Some crossed wires here. And I appreciate you <ahem> giving me the benefit of the doubt but... "you are just not paying attention to the conversation"

Sigh. Fren. If you are simply never open to the idea that somehow YOU'VE misread something or are not getting what the other party is saying, you will ALWAYS ascribe the problem to.... the other person.

So, in the interest of uncrossing some wires, let me clarify.

The gist of u/bluewhiteandred's (BWR's) comment: a critic of the dog owner analogy ~ "(the) Problem is humans have some kind of free will ..... puts the guilt on the offender for their choices .... Dogs lack this ability to choose like humans.

In agreement, I chimed in: Saying that yes, the OP's analogy is "obviously inapplicable" and followed that up with the example of what I think is a better analogy than the OP's.

It seems to me that you read my comment: "It's an obviously inapplicable analogy" was in reference to an analogy that BWR's had offered. Is that right? Did you think I was saying BWR's analogy is 'obviously inapplicable'?

Look, I hate to be just critical, but BWR didn't even offer an analogy, so its kind of bizarre to read my comment as anything but referring to the OPs analogy in agreement with BWR.

What BWR did was comment how the OPs analogy is not applicable or appropriate, and then gave reasons why, citing NOT an analogy but the reality of the dog's ability/responsibility vs human /ability responsibility in the context of the justice system that pus responsibility on humans who make a choice.

In the interests of uncrossing some wires, I suggest its not productive to simply accuse the other person of "trolling", or "not paying attention", or "ignoring what I wrote" when it seems that they don't get what you are saying. Because, often, as in this case, its a case of wirescross. Which, I'll comment, started with you misreading MY comment.

Now you may wish to criticize me and say "What you wrote was unclear, or ambiguous, or ungrammatical, etc." But maybe be open to the idea that you simply misread it (i.e. took it to mean one thing when I meant it as something else).

The point here is not to assign blame, but to look at and come to some awareness as to WHERE the wires get crossed, and misunderstanding arises.

To do this, its better to try to figure it out, rather than accuse the other person.

For what its worth, neither BWR nor you yourself offered any analogy. So its wildly off mark to read my comment as saying BWRs 'analogy' is inapplicable, AND to rebutted my comment to say 'it IS a good analogy' and then even say you made an argument why the non-existent analogy is a good one!!!

We obviously have different backgrounds (i.e. handling of language, etc) but as far as I can see, an analogy is one thing and an argument is another. They are NOT the same thing.

Conclusion: to draw a line under this....

You, BWR and I all agree that the dog owner analogy is NOT a good one in this case. We also agree that Judges should be held accountable in some way, but NOT in the way the OP suggests by use of his analogy.

I was in agreement with BWR, offered what I think is a better analogy to the OP dog owner analogy (my analogy was doctor malpractice / professional responsibility as being a criteria for holding judges accountable.

You thought I was disagreeing with BWR, and that I said that BWR's analogy (which as far as I can see doesn't exist, but if you think it does, let me know what you think it is, so I can see if I agree or not) was not applicable, and then stated "No, it IS a good analogy", which I then read (and thought) as meaning you were saying that the OP's dog analogy was a good analogy!!! The rest is just trying to uncross the wires.

Hope this clears things up a little. If there is some disagreement on your part, let me know. Fwiw, I personally think we are all in agreement, by and large, and we simply bumped into a few misreadings/misunderstandings along the way. Which can happen even if you are NOT using text, and speaking in person.

Hope that helps (from my side). Happy to hear your blame (kek) / understanding / criticisms, etc. Maybe they will help to uncross any future wires.

You need to have a little more humility when you are obviously incorrect on a something.....

Hmmm. So, I am assuming here you will say somehow I mis-wrote in my response to bwr, and that because of my fault, your reading of my comment is perfect and I am 'obviously incorrect'. Hmmm....

Suggestion: instead of assuming fgault on the other person, question whether maybe there is some misunderstanding. In this case, I think we were BOTH right, but we were talking about things that neither of us actually said (crossed wires)

Looking forward to your reply. For reference, re-read MY comments from the perspective that I agree with bwr AND you, and am being critical of the dog owner analogy. They might make more sense then.

Ps. If your focus is 'proving the other person wrong' then discussion is pointless. I have absolutely no interest in proving anything except to myself. And, in all humility, I think the only thing you have proven is that you misunderstood what i wrote, and then went from there. Feel free to assign the blame to me (poor writing? even though I'm a professional writer and frankly, I don't think so) but at least recognize you read it to mean something that was virtually the opposite of what I intended.