Replies

An innocent kid can break the neck or back of an old dog without even knowing how it happened.

Better then for boy and dog to never meet?

Tragedy can befall the most innocent and sometimes does. Were that to control us we would be joyless.

Better a boy and his dog share joy even if it ends in sadness.

So a boy climbs on a dog's back, a breed of dog well known for hip problems (and sometimes spinal injuries), but a parent doing what is in his or her power to prevent an avoidable tragedy is acting in a manner automatically antithetical to the admirable goal of letting a "boy and his dog share joy"

You seem to suppose that a boy's ignorant treatment of a dog is not automatically diametrically opposed to the assurance of a "boy and his dog [sharing] joy."

To put it one way:

"Only ignorance! only ignorance! how can you talk about only ignorance? Don't you know that it is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness?—and which does the most mischief heaven only knows. If people can say, 'Oh! I did not know, I did not mean any harm,' they think it is all right." --Anna Sewell

I respectfully submit that a boy and his dog can share joy without the boy causing the dog harm, or pain, even unintentionally, ignorantly, when the boy and his dog are properly taught how to enjoy one another without causing the other harm.