Over the last couple of days, I've repeatedly run across an article on the internet whose title is "Dog hailed as hero for guiding rescuers to owner's body." The title of the article was so lame that there was no way I was going to read it. (I will not link to the original article for the same reason.) In fact, the more I saw the title, the more irritated I became. This morning I realized that I've got to write about it. Unfortunately, this also meant that I had to read the article, which was just as bad as I thought it would be; Somehow it still classified as news.
Here's what happened... some dude in Australia was killed in a car wreck. The guy's dog was in the vehicle when the accident occurred. According to the article, the dog stayed with the car for two days, barking incessantly, until somebody went to investigate the noise. The crashed vehicle was hidden by brush and trees, which is why the accident wasn't found earlier.
How is the dog a hero? My understanding of heroism requires an exceptional amount of personal sacrifice and courage. Once upon a time, I ran across a guy who was having a stroke. I am the one who told someone to call 911 and then stayed with him until paramedics arrived. His family called me a hero. I could not (and can not) accept that title because neither courage nor sacrifice was required on my part. With that said, there's no way that a dog can be a hero for staying with his dead master. Furthermore, I believe that a certain amount of self-awareness is required for the tag hero. You have to understand that you're sacrificing yourself for something greater, and a dog doesn't meet that criteria.
And how is anyone a rescuer? My understanding of rescue is removing someone from great danger. When I say "great danger," I mean danger that has a significant chance of causing loss of life or limb, or causing permanent disability. If someone is killed before being removed from said danger, then there can be no rescue, because the consequence of that danger has already occurred.
In short, whoever thought this article was worthy of worldwide attention was an absolute idiot. Yeah, we need more good news in the world, but the word "news" is an integral part of good news. But the person who wrote the title is even worse! The dog is not self-aware, and did not successfully prevent his master's death. The dog is NOT a hero. Similarly, the guy who stumbled on the scene a couple of days later did not rescue anyone, because the consequence of the danger had already played out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yikes........how do you now the dog wasnt self aware? Did it not require a sense of loyalty to stay by his masters side those two days-going without food and water to ensure someone found his master- regardless of the outcome of his masters fate? Does that not count as self awareness?
And as for you- you were not required to ask for help for that person having the heart attack- nor were you obligated to stay with them until medical help arrived....you did what no one else did when you didn't have to.
In my eyes, both are acts of heroism.
I agree, but it sounds like just another slow news day so they decided to run one of those 'cutesy' stories.
It's like the old story of the guy who died and his dog laid on his grave every day.
No, it's not news, the dog wasn't a hero...but it filled some column inches and makes the average person go "Awwwww, what a sweet doggie."
To be completely honest, I'd RATHER read a story about a dog that didn't leave his master's side than another frigging WORD about Michael Jackson, which reality 'star' is cheating on which other z-list celebrity, or some bullshit moral panic dreamed up by someone desperate for ratings.
The truth is, if only newsworthy things were reported, we could get by with an hour long news show once every couple of weeks.
Sunny:
I'm always willing to change my mind, but based on the information I have to date, I don't believe that a dog qualifies as self-aware.
The article doesn't say whether or not food and water was available in the general vicinity of the accident site, so it's not reasonable to assume that the dog went without.
I still say that my actions weren't heroic, because I sacrificed myself in no way, shape or form. I try to be very conservative in my use of the word "hero." That's a word left for uncommon valor displayed by firemen, cops, soldiers and the occasional civilian who sacrifices his (or her) personal safety aside in order to save someone else who's in danger. Running into a burning building to save a baby is heroic. Maintaining your senses and rendering first aid to a stroke victim is not.
Paulius: Totally agree about Michael Jackson.
It may have been a slow news day, but the same story sitting up at the top of the heap for two days? And how about something a little closer to home? My biggest beef with the article though, is the use of "hero" and "rescue."
True- but if no-one was near enough to hear the accident happen or realize it had happened- I think it would be reasonable to assume there was no food or water for the animal..especially with it barking incessantly for two days before anyone investigated....
Onn the other hand- how does anyone KNOW how long he had been there barking if they weren't there to know? And why didn't they investigate sooner....??? A dog barking incessantly for a couple hours around our neighborhood would bring more than ONE person out to investigate, lemme tell you.
Hmmm...now I don't know what to think. I think I just argued BOTH sides of it.
Post a Comment