One cannot make emphatic judgments on how the dog looks as the dog’s face is not visible in the photo.
One ought not automatically assume that a moment is “sweet” or “loving” because one favors a politician.
Pretend that the picture wasn’t of a politician’s child. Pretend you don’t know anything about the dog, the child, the home environment or the parents (unless, of course, you are intimately acquainted with the Palin family and are a regular guest/ friend of the family / relative). What is your reaction now?
So then the logical conclusion is that Palin is a sadist that hid the dogs face to hide it’s pain while getting off on the suffering of the people horrified by the picture.
Right?
My reaction is what it is today, remember, not everyone is as neurotic and anal as you seem.
“Pretend that the picture wasn’t of a politician’s child. Pretend you don’t know anything about the dog, the child, the home environment or the parents (unless, of course, you are intimately acquainted with the Palin family and are a regular guest/ friend of the family / relative). What is your reaction now?”
_________________________________________
My reaction would be exactly the same.
The dog seems perfectly happy to let the boy stand on him. The boy seems very happy that the dog allows it. Because the dog, which is apparently healthy, well-fed and cared-for, did allow it.
Cute pic of adorable child and his best friend/service animal.