I understand why it's funny...you...you physical thing! It's just that persistent mental tugging you feel when reading the statement which has got me bothered, the nagging sense that this woman's wish couldn't possibly have been to be unilaterally derided by a board of dance-judges, the supposed syntactical infelicity n' all that - the very reason why it's funny. The statement in and of itself, is not amphibolous; it's amphibolous only because of the customary modern western-world denizen predilection to accept it as axiomatic that a child conceiving of the day when its dreams will be realized is imagining a moment of so-called 'positive' triumph - it's this very deeply ingrained tendency to associate certain things with certain other things, ascribing irony where it may not have been intended, etc., even in cases where doing so is to essentially ignore the intrinsic and most immediately evident, if scrutinized in a wholly objective manner, meaning of the statement(s); such as (imo) in this case. I'm of the opinion, despite one particular person's insistence to the contrary, that barring 'weighted' preconceptions, in describing a person named Ruth who aspired one day to dance in a manner which would be regarded as poor, maladroit, etc., the statement in question is logically valid/sound/isn't fallacious.
Why should we be forced to bring our biases to the table in instances where they may not be necessary for apprehension?
)
