|
The information is really lacking, but as far as I can tell, this fire department is NOT private!
So stop blaming the free market for what a municipal Obion County FD did or didn't do. Thanks!
http://troy.troytn.com/ocfire_myths.htm
|
On October 06 2010 04:35 Killykill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:39 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:37 Killykill wrote: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. What if he was fined 300$ or more afterwards? They were there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt the overall system.
To quote myself about the actual cost of the service.....
On October 06 2010 04:07 Impervious wrote:
Ok. To throw some numbers out there.
Lets assume that 1/1000 people will have their house burn down.
The cost is 75 dollars per year (present value).
He pays taxes for 50 years of his life.
Present value of that single call would be 1000 * 75 * 50 ~ 3.75 million dollars. That would be his share of the fire protection service.
Ok. Maybe 1/1000 is too rare. How about 1/100? That still puts it at around 375 000 bucks for his share in this situation.....
Yea. Are you guys sure that his house was worth 375 000 bucks? If it was, it's his own fucking fault for not having proper insurance and protection of it. If not, the better choice in that situation is to let the fucking thing burn down.....
Idiots need protection from themselves..... This should have been a mandatory 75 bucks a year thing, but yea, because it isn't, this type of shit will happen.....
Multiply your "300" by a factor of a thousand, and you're getting close.....
|
On October 06 2010 04:39 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote:
firefighters as humans should have put out the fire.
firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire.
when should one take precedent over the other?.
IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end.
its common sense. So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them.
laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
|
On October 06 2010 03:25 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote: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) 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.
A)
I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
B) Seems to me like you're either as compassionate as a rock or have a thing for stupid pseudo-philosophical questions, but I'd still answer:
I very much dislike having any feelings of unpleasantness, discomfort or suffering. I try to avoid them at all costs. I imagine that the same applies to every human being.
On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote: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) 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.
Still no room for free lunch discussions here. My use of the term "free lunch" had the sole purpose of showing that people can be compassionate sometimes (which the firefighters obviously were not).
I also did not imply by any means that the fire service should have been free. In fact, I did recommend charging him for this service (from here on, one could argue if the financing of the fire dept should not be restructered, e.g. by making the fee mandatory. but that's not the point of this discussion)
Well, neither of us knows exactly what the fire looked like when it started, how fast it spread and how dangerous it was. However from what I understand, the flames started outside of the house and needed at least some time until they reached the house. I do not expect the firefighters to take the risk of injuries or casualties (especially not for somebody who did not pay), however, it seems like they could have easily stopped the fire before it had reached the interior of the house.
You go way to far with the possibilities of charges he could have filed, if they saved his home. If you ask me, it is far more likely that he will file a charge now, since they did not save his house. I really don't see what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home. As far as the extortion goes, the city could demand a payment as a fine or as expenses coverage, and as far as the amount is somewhat reasonable there are no grounds to believe that he could succeed in court.
|
On October 06 2010 04:54 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 04:39 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote:
firefighters as humans should have put out the fire.
firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire.
when should one take precedent over the other?.
IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end.
its common sense. So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them. laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense.
In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law.
Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
|
He has no case if he tries to file a suit against the fire department. They broke no laws or contracts. If they did put out his house fire they would have broken the law and been liable for damages. How many times does this have to be restated?
|
On October 06 2010 05:00 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 04:54 xM(Z wrote:On October 06 2010 04:39 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote:
firefighters as humans should have put out the fire.
firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire.
when should one take precedent over the other?.
IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end.
its common sense. So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them. laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense. In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law. Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class?
And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent.
Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
|
Well good for the ones who pay, if you don't well take the shit it comes at you... This hapends on the medical care too atleast on my country... Of course you get the ER attention but if you need something big your going to get a big ass bill on your hands or in your family if you die
|
This is just horrible.  I'm so glad I don't live in USA.
|
What a retarded system of paying for fire protection. It should be included in local taxes. No one can predict that a fire will happen to their house, so there will be people that will think they don't have to pay it if it's an external fee system like that. However, there's no excusable reason why firefighters should just watch a house burn down. They should be getting payed, and they should be saving houses, and the only way that would happen for sure is if they were paid in a more inescapable method of taxation, like a local sales tax.
|
On October 05 2010 14:21 Nightmarjoo wrote:
I guess if he's supposed to pay the fee and didn't, then you get what you pay for, but still it sure is a dick move for the firefighters to show up and just watch it burn ._.
I think as long as you pay taxes you're entitled to firefighting service. Obviously once you stop the house from burning you can bust out the prosecutors and work out a charge of a fine or something afterward but letting the house burn is just ridiculous.
|
On October 06 2010 05:04 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:00 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 04:54 xM(Z wrote:On October 06 2010 04:39 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote:
firefighters as humans should have put out the fire.
firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire.
when should one take precedent over the other?.
IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end.
its common sense. So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them. laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense. In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law. Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class? And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent. Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you?
How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
|
On October 05 2010 14:48 hixhix wrote:
Finally, two posters understand economic. If you can pay a large amount of money to save your house at any time without a monthly fee, then the majority of people will choose that option and the fire department is completely fucked.
Let us assume......nothing
I support your economics arguement with statistics.
According to FEMA 4,000 americans die and 25,000 are injured every year in a fire.
http://www.fema.gov/hazard/fire/index.shtm
According to the U.S. census burea there are approximately 2.59 people per household in this country. Thus it is fair to assume, that of the 29,000 total people effected that they are spread amongst approximately 11,197 homes.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
There are 115,830,115 million homes in america (using 300 million as a rough estimate of our population divided by the 2.59 people per home)
$8,687,258,687.25 if each of those households pays for "fire insurance"
Alternatively, if none of the households pay for the insurance then only the 11,197 have to pay 7,500 and the fire dept only rakes in $897,740. A sharp decrease. This statistic is not surprising however (or at least it shouldn't be) to anyone who owns car insurance. If you are paying the monthly fee for car insurance or in this case, fire insurance, you are paying drastically more than your person costs the company to insure on aveage. (why do you think you see 2 geico, a state farm, an allstate, and a progressive commercial during the superbowl?)
To actually match the amount of money the fire department is asking(raping) from it's constituants, each burning home would have to cough up $775,855.91 Just for the department to break even.
Localizing this situation to my home stat of VA.
The annual budget for our fire department is $31,298,258 for a population of 7,882,590 people or about 4$ per person.
http://dpb.virginia.gov/budget/buddoc10/secretary.cfm?sa=6 (budget)
www.google.com/publicdata (population)
This leads me to several conclusions.
1. The fire department in Obion County, Tennessee. Is completely raping their customers.
2. Someone should undercut them with a private firefighting service that only charges 25$ a month with more stations and faster service and still make a killing. You would need a couple billion dollars of upstart money though. 
|
On October 06 2010 05:11 AlienAlias wrote:
What a retarded system of paying for fire protection. It should be included in local taxes. No one can predict that a fire will happen to their house, so there will be people that will think they don't have to pay it if it's an external fee system like that. However, there's no excusable reason why firefighters should just watch a house burn down. They should be getting payed, and they should be saving houses, and the only way that would happen for sure is if they were paid in a more inescapable method of taxation, like a local sales tax.
On October 06 2010 05:12 SubtleArt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:21 Nightmarjoo wrote:
I guess if he's supposed to pay the fee and didn't, then you get what you pay for, but still it sure is a dick move for the firefighters to show up and just watch it burn ._. I think as long as you pay taxes you're entitled to firefighting service. Obviously once you stop the house from burning you can bust out the prosecutors and work out a charge of a fine or something afterward but letting the house burn is just ridiculous.
People are still not reading this thread. They cannot include it into the local taxes because they have no jurisdiction in that area! The SERVICE they are providing HAS to be optional because the city cannot mandate regions outside their control to pay them.
|
Completely irrisponsible descision by the firefighters (whom I think were acting based on policies set by the Mayor of the city). Fires have the ability to spread unpredictably and that situation could have turned out much worse if the fire had spread to a wider area causing way more damage. Safety should always come before money.
|
On October 06 2010 05:00 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:25 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote: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) 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. A) Show nested quote +
I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
B) Seems to me like you're either as compassionate as a rock or have a thing for stupid pseudo-philosophical questions, but I'd still answer: I very much dislike having any feelings of unpleasantness, discomfort or suffering. I try to avoid them at all costs. I imagine that the same applies to every human being. Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote: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) 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. Still no room for free lunch discussions here. My use of the term "free lunch" had the sole purpose of showing that people can be compassionate sometimes (which the firefighters obviously were not). I also did not imply by any means that the fire service should have been free. In fact, I did recommend charging him for this service (from here on, one could argue if the financing of the fire dept should not be restructered, e.g. by making the fee mandatory. but that's not the point of this discussion) Well, neither of us knows exactly what the fire looked like when it started, how fast it spread and how dangerous it was. However from what I understand, the flames started outside of the house and needed at least some time until they reached the house. I do not expect the firefighters to take the risk of injuries or casualties (especially not for somebody who did not pay), however, it seems like they could have easily stopped the fire before it had reached the interior of the house. You go way to far with the possibilities of charges he could have filed, if they saved his home. If you ask me, it is far more likely that he will file a charge now, since they did not save his house. I really don't see what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home. As far as the extortion goes, the city could demand a payment as a fine or as expenses coverage, and as far as the amount is somewhat reasonable there are no grounds to believe that he could succeed in court.
You are right, we do not know what the fire looked like, or how it progressed. We do know it to the fire department 2 hours get out to the call though, and fire can spread really far in two hours. I don't think its fair to assume that it was some trivial fire when the fire department got there, and if it was, they owner should have put it out him self.
Well, if he does file a suite now, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. Unless you pay the service charge they are not legally obligated at all to do anything for him, so if he does sue he will end up getting nothing and having to pay court costs. As for "what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home" well, I detailed them already in a previous post.
and you are right, the city could demand what ever it wanted. And the guy would have no legal obligation to pay anything. If you read this you would know that they do charge a fee for responding to call, and they end up collecting it less then 50% of the time because they have no legal way of collecting these fees. So they could charge what they want, but have no way to collect it
|
Costs for running fire service don't scale like that. A city of 2500 people like in this article or a city with 10,000 people would both likely have one fire station so the bigger city gets a cheaper per resident cost.
|
On October 06 2010 05:25 Neo7 wrote:
Completely irrisponsible descision by the firefighters (whom I think were acting based on policies set by the Mayor of the city). Fires have the ability to spread unpredictably and that situation could have turned out much worse if the fire had spread to a wider area causing way more damage. Safety should always come before money.
They were there not to dilly dally or to make fun of the guy, but to prevent the fire from spreading.
|
On October 06 2010 05:25 Neo7 wrote:
Completely irrisponsible descision by the firefighters (whom I think were acting based on policies set by the Mayor of the city). Fires have the ability to spread unpredictably and that situation could have turned out much worse if the fire had spread to a wider area causing way more damage. Safety should always come before money.
Read the article. They were watching the house burn specifically to make sure it didn't spread. They hosed the grass between the burning house an a neighbour to stop it from spreading.
|
On October 06 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:04 Half wrote:On October 06 2010 05:00 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 04:54 xM(Z wrote:On October 06 2010 04:39 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote:
firefighters as humans should have put out the fire.
firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire.
when should one take precedent over the other?.
IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end.
its common sense. So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them. laws are made for the people not the other way arround and flaws in their making/enforcing do not entitle anyone to be a douche at someone else expense. In American democracy people DO make the laws by voting for propositions and the politicians who propose new laws. A system you disagree with doesn't allow you to break the rule of law. Basically you're wrong. Did nobody pay attention in Civics class? And historically, drastic and significant change has occurred in America through individuals perceived as radical nonviolently breaking laws they perceive as unjust. And stopping someones house from fucking burning down is certainly nonviolent. Seriously how can you be this pro-establishment to paint refusing to stopping someones house from burning down as a public duty? What the hell is wrong with you? How many times must this be said? I'm against the system they have, everyone should pay a fire service tax so everyone gets service. However, the system they have is different and the firefighters were only doing their job an following the law so they did nothing wrong. Giving them shit for not breaking policy an the law is unfair. They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
Well, I agree we don't really have a right to give them shit while were sitting from the comfort of computer. But it sounded like you weren't just defending the firefighters not doing something, you were actively advocating that not doing something was a superior course of action.
They shouldn't have to put their job on the line because someone didnt opt Into the fee system, especially since they couldve realized that this incident could prompt a change in the system anyways.
No, they shouldn't have to. Rosa Parks was by no means obligated to do what she did. But still, standing up is certainly a nice thing to do.
Though yeah, I doubt any of us would do differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
