[flagged]
On the other hand, overly sanitary spaces don't seem to make us healthier overall. Living life fully necessarily entails some risk. :)
Dangerous predators belong to nature and forests. Public city parks are not nature (or toilet)!
Do you have any source for this statement? If you get stomach infection (like ulcer), there is no investigation of source of bacteria. Every municipality just accepts dog poop as "part of nature". And nations that do not tolerate dogs are healthier.
Toxoplasma can be actually traced to cats, and like 60% of population are infected!
Huge part of population have stomach ulcers and other poop hygiene related diseases with "unknown sources"!
Which nations would that be?
I note a total absence of sources for your claims.
You talk about dog poop but then speak of "stomach ulcers and other poop hygiene releated diseases with "unknown sources"". The main cause of stomach ulcers (other than painkiller overuse) seems to be (certain strains of) heliobacter pylori:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori
The transmission route of heliobacter pylori is both fecal-oral AND oral-oral with the latter apparently being far more common. Heliobacter pylori is transmitted between humans and has been with humans since before humans first migrated from Africa. So "stomach ulcers" are neither a "poop hygiene related disease" nor have mostly "unknown sources".
Also no, "every municipality" does not "accept dog poop as "part of nature"". Numerous (if not all) US states and many (if not all) EU countries have "pooper scooper" laws that come with considerable fines for letting your dog poop in public and not cleaning up after them. In Italy there have even been cases of DNA testing being used to investigate abandoned dog poop.
Not only are your claims unsourced and don't stand up to scrutiny but some of them are completely incomprehensible:
> And nations that do not tolerate dogs are healthier.
What does that sentence even mean? I assume by "nation" you mean "country" but what do you mean by "not tolerating dogs" and what do you base the definition of "healthier" on?
So no, nobody owes you any sources. You have to back up your claims first.
Yeah, the furry bastards force people to walk every day, two times a day, train their launching skills, make people laugh, alleviate boredom and mental issues, save children from their bad ideas, and drag its owners directly to interact with other dog owners and make friends.
Social interaction, exercise, security, happiness... just the opposite to following a healthy life style.
I see one study claiming 1.1% of visits to Emergency Departments are dog-caused, and another estimating 14% of visits by women are due to domestic violence. These numbers, while not a perfect refutation, don't seem to align with your claim at all.
But seriously, you seem to have a bizarrely pathological hatred of dogs, enough of it to just throw out completely random accusations against them with nothing at all to back your weird bullshit. Why? Who knows, but if you're going to do it why not add a source or two?
Yes, it is called "reactive" dogs. Remember the definition of DV, next time someone is blamed for provoking the dog. Even if dog is "provoked", that is not valid reason for violence!
And I am not talking about dog owners, but their victims. Mostly children, spouses... They have no option to leave an abusive household. Many times they are gaslit and shamed. Dog owners have many privileges, and can get away with brutal child murder!
Even threats of violence (growling), or forced sleep deprivation are DV!!!
Either you're some sort of troll or you've let this hatred totally cloud basic reasoning. They're dogs dude, very different from people and their capacity for malice.
And most dog owners, being the family members of all these abused people you claim, would themselves do what they could to train their dogs against freely harming others.