There has developed something of an argument – a bru-haha, if you will – concerning culpability in the great sunglasses caper reported earlier this week.
I considered when I dictated that blog that culpability lay with me. I had, after all, been caught fair and square with the evidence in my mouth. There could be no deflection, no deferment – truly, if blame was assigned (and this does indeed seem to be the case) strictly on the basis of mere physical evidence, well I was, in fact, at fault. I did it. It was me. Mea Culpa.
However, some doubt has now been cast on the efficacy of this method of assigning responsibility. It has been said that the entire sunglasses folly was not, in fact, my fault, but Jay’s – for leaving me alone, with the sunglasses within easy reach. The argument continues that my nature as a feral being (not precisely sure what that means) ought to have been taken into account – my innate tendencies should have been considered.
I like the sound of this. After all, as ‘just a puppy’ I really don’t see how mistakes can be my fault – in my opinion they must always accrue to someone else. Let’s face it, puppyhood comes with obligations: common sense meltdowns are expected; slip-ups are part of the job; pooping in strange places is a must, piddling on the counter at Mucky Pups (“Not to worry”) is chuckled over, and barking at quiet moments in the movie is par for the course. These are all very predictable elements of puppy behaviour.
Jay of course won’t take this kind of thing lying down. His response is that the reverse is also true: if he was responsible for my errors in judgment then I must be equally responsible for his. This I’m not so sure I like – after all I hear he’s made some whoppers.
I shall have to mull this one over. Later – after my evening walk.