>>13783405>Oh come on, I'm the one getting desperate? Did you want the Chinese Zodiac written thousands of years ago to say "The year of Genus Canis"?
So you're going to assuming the zodiac dog is a broad term to supply ammunition for your idea?
Look, the simple fact of the matter is, hell even DEDUCTIVELY speaking the dog would mroe than likely have reffered to ana ctual domestic fucking dog, And since it doesnt even refer to that IN THE FIRST PLACE but to the shiisa, the point is moot regardless.
Im sorry, but saying that you cant generalize a whole fucking family of animals to one animals isnt asking for too much. You want to generalize things at the species and maybe in the genus level? Go on right ahead, not an issue, but families of animals is pushing it
>Like I said. Calling a wolf a dog is just as scientifically valid as calling a domesticated dog a dog BECAUSE DOG IS NOT A SPECIES.Actually it would be invalid to call a wolf a dog, its valid to call a dog a wolf how ever.
All dogs are wolves, but not all wolves are dogs, or domestic dog if you want to be more accurate
