|
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. You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate
“The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”
I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?
Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?
If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts?
You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you.
|
On October 06 2010 05:06 Holgerius wrote:This is just horrible.  I'm so glad I don't live in USA.
This is an exceptional case - most (I'm assuming almost all?) towns in the US have their fire departments funded through state/town taxes. This particular town just wants to do things their own way.
Y'know, I bet that the neighbor who paid the $75 fee would have preferred if they had just put the damn fire out in the first place. I doubt the other townspeople who paid the $75 feel totally smug about themselves. If his neighbors had the means to help, I'm sure they would have. I bet they're pissed at the FD they actually pay their fees to.
|
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?
kinda lame argument there and highly arguable (ex:one could say that the laws are made by the rich for the rich) but ill humor you.
are you saying that after voting, the loosing side is forced to just suck it up and take it up the rear from the wining side?. really?, i thought were all humans here and regardless of who wins the law should protect us all.
i did not say we are above the law but i am saying we should be better then it.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 05:39 xM(Z 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? kinda lame argument there and highly arguable (ex:one could say that the laws are made by the rich for the rich) but ill humor you. are you saying that after voting, the loosing side is forced to just suck it up and take it up the rear from the wining side?. really?, i thought were all humans here and regardless of who wins the law should protect us all. i did not say we are above the law but i am saying we should be better then it.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. That why most functioning 'Democracies' are really Republics. There is not, and likely will never be, universal agreement on how much 'protection' every person has the right to.
Would I like to expect my house to be safe if something happens to it, absolutely. Would I expect if I didn't pay the taxes/fees associated with it, nope.
|
These posts are too long for my iPhone to handle. I didnt say anything about right to protest. These firefighters are free to protest to the mayor after work. However, while they were on duty, they have to do their job.
On October 06 2010 05:31 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote: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. You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate “The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.” I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you? Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me? If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts? You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you.
|
On October 06 2010 05:44 Zzoram wrote:These posts are too long for my iPhone to handle. I didnt say anything about right to protest. These firefighters are free to protest to the mayor after work. However, while they were on duty, they have to do their job. Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:31 xarthaz wrote:On October 06 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote: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. You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate “The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.” I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you? Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me? If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts? You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you. Not firefighter, but would be client of would be public service
|
Did you just say te home owner had the freedom not to pay? Of course he did, and he exercised that freedom not to pay. Thats why he didn't get firefighting service.
On October 06 2010 05:47 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:44 Zzoram wrote:These posts are too long for my iPhone to handle. I didnt say anything about right to protest. These firefighters are free to protest to the mayor after work. However, while they were on duty, they have to do their job. On October 06 2010 05:31 xarthaz wrote:On October 06 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote: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. You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate “The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.” I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you? Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me? If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts? You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you. Not firefighter, but would be client of would be public service
|
Here's how I see it:
If you elect not to buy Earthquake Insurance and an earthquake destroys your house would you expect to be covered by it?
The Fire Department in this area functions the same way, whether it's a good policy or not is irrelevant.
I agree with what the firefighters did (though I feel the system they use should change and I feel it was morally wrong).
|
On October 06 2010 05:31 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:14 Zzoram wrote: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. You probably didnt read my post, allow me to reiterate “The issue is not whether public fire departments are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.” I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically ( “You likey the fire departments? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Obama”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you? Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me? If yes, then,you think that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the fire depts, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the fire depts? You have to either agree with you and admit that public fire debts are violence, or you have to argue that you do support the use of violence against me for disagreeing with you.
Nice attempt but I don't think anyone here will ever understand the "against me" argument.
If that's not what you're doing then sorry.
|
Canada1039 Posts
i wonder if the neighbours were even helping to put out the fire. it could just be that they live in a county area and neighbours are far away, but the way this story sounds, i imagine some guy peeking through his window watching people try to put out a fire, and the second he sees it on his property, he calls the fire department, and goes back to whatever he was doing. my mind's eye is silly though...
|
What a retarded system to have. Seriously, even out in the boonies near where I live there is volunteer fire departments funded by the county they are in. I mean really is it so hard to bill the guy double the fee or whatever after the fact. That's basically the way ambulance services work. You don't pay anything, but get a sizable bill in the mail if you do use one.
|
If what the news report shows is accurate its absolutely shameful that United States citizens have degenerated to this level. This article basically shows that the National Character of the people sworn to preserve life and property are more interested in maintaining some parasitic system than helping out their fellow human being, countryman, and neighbor. They are sitting there with the trianing , equipment, and the manpower to stop life changing harm from falling on their neighbor and they sit idle watching. If you think about it this is equivalent to holding a life preserver and watching someone drown right next to you.
|
On October 06 2010 05:55 STS17 wrote:
Here's how I see it:
If you elect not to buy Earthquake Insurance and an earthquake destroys your house would you expect to be covered by it?
The Fire Department in this area functions the same way, whether it's a good policy or not is irrelevant.
I agree with what the firefighters did (though I feel the system they use should change and I feel it was morally wrong).
I counter your example with a decent ambulance service. Whether or not you are someone who paid into the ambulance service, if you're in need you will be taken care of an face the charges of having to pay for the service later. Just sitting on your hands for HOURS and watching someone in distress is morally wrong. Your example of an earthquake does not take into account that damage could have been prevented, as quakes will quake.
|
This policy was adopted in 1990. Who here thinks he didn't pay just this year and county is out to get him for 1 missed pymt? Cause that would change things a lot.
Whether you agree/disagree with this county's way of doing things. You can't have sympathy for the guy. Especially when this guy is likely the type to vote for these types of policies instead of paying little more tax on his property.
|
Do you guys just not get it? You can't just charge an arbitrary fee on the spot. If the system didn't have a fee structure then they can't accept fees.
The system obviously sucks, but nothing wrong was done by the firefighters within the confines of the system that they live with.
|
United States17042 Posts
|
Fuck the law, not saving someone's house over a $75 fee is wrong. Provided I think they should charge him a decent surcharge so they don't embolden other people to not pay the fee thinking "oh they'll save my house anyway".
|
United States17042 Posts
Agree with the morally wrong, and the firefighters just aren't doing the correct thing for their community.
|
On October 06 2010 05:42 Myles wrote:
Would I like to expect my house to be safe if something happens to it, absolutely. Would I expect if I didn't pay the taxes/fees associated with it, nope.
technically true but again, arguable. mby one cant pay the taxes at that particular time. i would expect that person to get a pass for a while, i would expect you to be able to prove his bad intent (if any) before you cut him off.
but even then, when disaster strucks you should never ditch your fellow humans.
some people learn from their mistakes, let him make his and change your law after.
|
On October 06 2010 07:03 Jonoman92 wrote:
Fuck the law, not saving someone's house over a $75 fee is wrong. Provided I think they should charge him a decent surcharge so they don't embolden other people to not pay the fee thinking "oh they'll save my house anyway".
They have no authority to collect any fee because that house was outside their jurisdiction, and whatever bill they try to give the guy after the fact would not have to be paid. Not to mention the home owner could sue the city for any water damage and make a killing since they weren't even supposed to save his house. That's why they only offered service to rural homes that opted to contract with the city for fire fighting service, to cover their costs and cover themselves legally. Again, how many times does this have to be repeated?
It really seems like everyone who is outraged never read the full article and watched the news video, and has no understanding of jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
