Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonanza
Sorry, but NOT self-serving at all! You are exaggerating. There are some (not many) people who are negatively affected by exposure to dogs as a result of illness. What kind of illness would that be? If it's an allergy, the person doesn't have to pet the dog or be in its company; they can walk away. They can also be medicated. Fear or distrust? Same thing as allergy and see a psychiatrist.
I once did a personal study for my own satisfaction and found a great correlation between people who said they were allergic to dogs and cats (truthfully, mostly cats) to those who did not like dogs and cats. I found the results to be interesting and amazing.
Yes, owning a dog is an emotional thing and gives great comfort and satisfaction to those who own the dog and to those with whom the dog is in direct contact.
|
Not exaggerating. As a former dog owner who still loves dogs but now lives with one negatively affected by dogs, it is my opinion that those individuals deserve the right to not be forced to accept exposure to dogs except in the case of TRUE service dogs (ie:seeing eye dogs). Service dogs owners should be required to be questioned and carry proof of type of service.
As to your study, it should make perfect sense that one would not like the thing(s) that they fear or that make them ill. I find your results not "interesting and amazing", but exactly what one would/should expect. And your comment to just walk away. That is often impractical or just not possible.
I agree that owning a dog is an emotional thing. We love our pets, but not everyone else does. Nor should we expect them to or demand they do.
Emotional support animals serve the same purpose as a teddy bear. Something to focus on and hold to transfer your distress to Think of the poor dog, for God's sake. It senses your distress, has no idea what is so wrong. Now you have made the poor dog miserable. Shame on you. Take a "happy" pill, grab your teddy bear and let the poor dog alone for its mental health.