> You don't see how stating someone has limited thought capacity is berating.

No. If someone has limited thought capacity, they have limited thought capacity. That is just a fact of life. For someone so concerned about the veracity of data, how can you see a datapoint as being berating?

Granted, the datapoint in this case is only hypothetical (as you would have noticed if you retained the "if"), but such datapoints also do exist in the real data. There absolutely are people in this world with limited thought capacity. That much is not a hypothetical.

> You don't see how being called a dog is berating.

Likened to a dog. But, no. Why?

> You might want to re-evaluate what people would commonly find berating.

I'm sure you've got some great data for me to look at, but my understanding is that people find something berating when they understand a statement as some kind of truth that they don't want to admit to themselves. It is quite obvious that nobody feels berated when an assertion is so outlandish that it couldn't be true. That becomes comedy.

I have no illusions of being anything related to a dog, so if you likened me to — or even straight up called me — a dog, I would not find that berating, no. If you went after my actual insecurities, then sure. I would then. I am certainly not immune to silly human emotion, but silly human emotion does not get triggered by random strings of text.

So, perhaps this is good opportunity to dive into why you feel insecure about your thought capacity and animal shapeliness for these particular strings to activate your emotions. What are your thoughts there?

(And my apologies for finding your insecurities. I would have never guessed those particular things would bother anyone. The things you learn from having a discussion!)