I didn't lie about anything. The image made two statements. First statement is that dogs can identify us as humans. That statement is irrelevant to this discussion because I didn't address it all. The second statement is that cats view humans as "terrible incompetent cats".

The person you replied to asked for a source about those claim but they didn't clarify which statement they wanted a source for. Now asking source for the second statement can be interpreted three ways. The person asked for a source for cats viewing as cats, cats viewing us as "terrible incompetent" or the previous two together that cats view us as terrible incompetent cats.

You gave a source for that statement but you also didn't clarify which part the source verifies. So taking the 3 interpretations:

If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as cats your source is fine.
If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as "terrible incompetent" your source directly disproves that statement. Therefor your source is no fine.
If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as cats and as "terrible incompetent" your source is true on the first part but false on the second part which means your source is not fine. If you can't understand why go back to school to learn classical logic.

Two out of three interpretations means your source is wrong. Just because you want to believe you only addressed that one interpretation where your source is right doesn't mean you actually did because you never specified which part of the statement you gave a source for. How are we supposed to know that was what you meant?

To put it as plainly as I can put it, had you said "This source only shows that cats view us as cats" I would've had no issue with your comment. You left your source open to interpretation and 2 of the 3 interpretations meant you were wrong.

Now this conversation had been over many comments ago if you had just gone "I didn't think it could be misinterpreted, my bad." but you continue to demand you were never wrong in the first place. That is why you are getting downvoted and I'm not getting downvoted. You being an insufferable asshole who can't properly express themselves also doesn't help. And just to be very clear, I haven't downvoted you once because unlike you I don't actually care about upvotes or downvotes.

[–] theUwUhugger@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The bullshit is the part you can read in your comments! Mirrors are magic!

You did! You lied! The quote you claimed you copied from my source is false as they is not there! And now you lie about you lying before! You now trying to shift goalposts is very very very pathetic!

Yes I am certain the person the person who started this comment wanted clarification on the usage of the word of incompetent instead of clumsy, and not general cat&dog social behavior! As the latter is only interesting, while your issue is circumstantial nonsense! So much so that you have to make your quotes up as absolutely nothing supports it!

My sources verified what I wrote down… Not what you imagine that I implied, which clarified I didn’t on 2 seperate comments… Why do you have the right to vote?

No, if we were to shift the goal post then the source would not become magically wrong; I would have not provided for the thing OP asked for! And you can know what I mean, by again, reading the 2 separate comment in which I clarified that I do not imply your nonsense!

I wasn’t wrong and you are an asshole! I am being downvoted because you falsely made up a quote which you claimed are from my source which contradicts my statements!

[–] Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago

You fucking donkey.

image of the quote in the nat geo article, set to be removed in 2 weeks

Next time read your source instead of believing you can't be wrong because you're too technologically inept to use the fucking find function.