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.