|
On October 06 2010 02:35 NukeTheBunnys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:27 Skee wrote:
The guy lost everything he owned because he didn't pay seventy five dollars!
Show some sympathy. Why should I show any sympathy. Its the same as if he was driving his car, not wearing a seatbelt, and no air bags, then he got into an accident and flew through his windshield and died a horrible painful death. It was his own fault for not taking the precautions he should have.
What the hell are you talking about? This only makes sense if... actually I can't get this to make sense.
|
On October 06 2010 03:02 goldfishs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:35 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 02:27 Skee wrote:
The guy lost everything he owned because he didn't pay seventy five dollars!
Show some sympathy. Why should I show any sympathy. Its the same as if he was driving his car, not wearing a seatbelt, and no air bags, then he got into an accident and flew through his windshield and died a horrible painful death. It was his own fault for not taking the precautions he should have. What the hell are you talking about? This only makes sense if... actually I can't get this to make sense.
1) He chose not to buy protection.
2) He needed protection.
3) Because he did not buy protection, no protection was offered
4) House burned down.
In the car analogy...
1) He chose not to use protection.
2) He needed protection.
3) Because he did not use protection, there was no protection.
4) Went through windshield.
|
People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
|
On October 06 2010 02:45 MutaDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:38 JinDesu wrote:On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you. Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!" See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
Because unless you lived out in the rural areas, they don't take kindly to things they feel that they don't need, namely government intervention. I live in Kentucky and I get a lot of that kind of sentiment around here. You try taxing rural regions on stuff like this, they'll vote it down 9 times out of 10. Hell, public transportation had to fight to get a slight increase in property taxes in metro areas in order to keep it financially afloat.
The man in the article is trying to have it both ways. Like trying to buy insurance after an injury at a before-injury premium, it doesn't work like that. Manifesto is right in that the government could charge an exorbitant amount, but that would only work out if the government had such a clause in place already. Namely because the man could have brought up a legal shit storm against the govt. In any case, the man made a decision before all of this happened and he has to live with the consequences.
Firefighters deserve no blame because doing the right thing here doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run, i.e.- if everyone in rural areas just stopped paying the fees and pulling this crap every time there was a fire. So the man deserves no sympathy and the firefighters deserve no blame, it's a shitty situation, but to blame any singular entity for the outcome is naive.
|
On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else.
My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble.
Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare)
On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice. And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others.
Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable.
And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money".
On top of that, the firefighters were right there watching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
|
On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else. My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare) Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice. And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others. Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable. And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right there watching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
You are not making any argument. You are just saying "letting a house burn down when you can stop it is inhumane." If you want that to be your argument you need to explain why:
A) Letting a house burn down is inhumane.
B) Inhumane things should always be avoided at all costs.
|
In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : /
|
On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:
On top of that, the firefighters were right there watching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
He made the choice to not pay, the fact the firefighters went out there at all shows that they actually care about the well-being of the parties involved. What would have been inhumane is if the firefighters or 911 just straight up told him, deal with it, it's your problem.
Shit happens, you choose what shit you get to protect against, he clearly made the decision not to protect against fire. Don't put fire protection as a human right, it's a privilege and paid for by fees and taxes, he didn't pay anything, he doesn't get it.
|
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Highlighting the key points. It's still a government issue nonetheless.
|
On October 06 2010 03:27 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you. Highlighting the key points. It's still a government issue nonetheless.
As I explained previously, there are two discussions going on in parallel here. Saying that one is unresolved doesn't mean the explanation that answers the other is wrong.
|
On October 06 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote:
In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : /
Ouch, really? When was this?
And the surprise is at the citizens getting angry at the firefighters. I know that Detroit is broke.
|
I'm glad someone went to the fire department and assaulted an officer. Every one of the people in that local fire department deserve a swift kick to the face.
|
On October 06 2010 03:07 rackdude wrote:
People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account.
True, this guy, like the party moocher, is a douche.
But if you're an EMT (I am) and some guy I know is a douche has a bullet in his leg, I'm going to help and face the consequences later. The guy deserved to be fined, at least, but to just let his house burn down is a little over the top.
|
On October 06 2010 03:29 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote:
In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : / Ouch, really? When was this? And the surprise is at the citizens getting angry at the firefighters. I know that Detroit is broke.
Just a few weeks ago. I think a power line fell, and burned ~82 houses. Only about 20 were occupied though. Detroit has no shortage of abandoned houses.
And I think that the people just got angry at the firefighters because they needed to vent their rage, and the firefighters were conveniently there.
|
On October 06 2010 03:37 Killykill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:07 rackdude wrote:
People keep on talking about how the firefighters were "douches" or whatever word you want to put there, but what about the guy who didn't pay? He's like the guy who always shows up to your parties, eats your food, and never hosts anything himself. That's just as "douche" and there has to be a way to be like "dude, you cannot do that". It can be harsh, and yes this is a little too harsh, but it's not like he's innocent. He tried to cheat and got caught. Hacker just lost his account. True, this guy, like the party moocher, is a douche. But if you're an EMT (I am) and some guy I know is a douche has a bullet in his leg, I'm going to help and face the consequences later. The guy deserved to be fined, at least, but to just let his house burn down is a little over the top.
He didn't have a bullet in his leg, thus your analogy is irrelevant to this discussion. There is a greater economic problem with helping this guy who chose not to pay: it sets a precedent that will lead to decreased revenues and thus worse service overall for everyone.
|
On October 06 2010 03:37 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:29 JinDesu wrote:On October 06 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote:
In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : / Ouch, really? When was this? And the surprise is at the citizens getting angry at the firefighters. I know that Detroit is broke. Just a few weeks ago. I think a power line fell, and burned ~82 houses. Only about 20 were occupied though. Detroit has no shortage of abandoned houses. And I think that the people just got angry at the firefighters because they needed to vent their rage, and the firefighters were conveniently there.
I'm assuming the firefighters are also predominately white?
|
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
|
On October 06 2010 03:40 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:37 Ferrose wrote:On October 06 2010 03:29 JinDesu wrote:On October 06 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote:
In Detroit a bunch of houses burned down because the fire department didn't have the resources to fight the fires, because no one paid their taxes. And then the citizens get angry at the firefighters. : / Ouch, really? When was this? And the surprise is at the citizens getting angry at the firefighters. I know that Detroit is broke. Just a few weeks ago. I think a power line fell, and burned ~82 houses. Only about 20 were occupied though. Detroit has no shortage of abandoned houses. And I think that the people just got angry at the firefighters because they needed to vent their rage, and the firefighters were conveniently there. I'm assuming the firefighters are also predominately white?
I would not be surprised.
|
On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^
That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
|
On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else. My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare) Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice. And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others. Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable. And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right there watching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
And where as you would need to make some personal sacrifices to your personal comfort, the firefighters would have had to make sacrifices to their personal safety. Do you know how to fight fires, step one is to climb on the roof and cut big holes to let the heat out and water in. The roof is frequently damaged by the fire, so this is one of the most dangerous parts of fighting a fire. You don't just stand outside where its safe and point a hose, because the fire is never going to get put out. Not only that they would be endangering their job, and the job of everyone else that they work with by opening themselves up to liability suites. And If the man won, and got compensation, it would be the fire department that had to pay, meaning less firemen, less equipment, and therefore more of a risk next time they go out on a call. By charging an arbitrary amount of money he could sue them for extortion as well as the water damage and trespassing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
