|
On October 06 2010 08:15 Sturmmann wrote:
Kinda like a cop watching someone get raped and going "well they forgot to pay taxes last month. serves em right"
Nice hyperbole. You guys are making it sound like the firefighters sat and watched a house burn down with his baby daughter and a litter of cute kittens inside, laughing the entire time. Obviously if there were people trapped in the house, it would add extra consideration to the story (and I like to think the firefighters would have done something about it in that case). But there weren't. The house was property, and it was the mans responsibility to protect it. When he didn't pay the $75, he failed to do that. His loss.
|
On October 06 2010 07:59 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote:
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee. If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react!
Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
|
On October 06 2010 08:30 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:59 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote:
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee. If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums? And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react! Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
Sure he can react, but he can't make a police arrest. He might be able to make a citizen's arrest though, he just needs to make sure he follows the proper procedures or the offender would go free on a technicality.
|
On October 06 2010 08:30 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:59 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote:
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee. If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums? And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react! Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
|
people who insist on a statist solution to the problem have it wrong. Threatening everyone so that everyone will pay to save one man's house is crazy. That is like the mafia coming to your house and telling you "pay me $2 to put out the bakery's fire or I will kill you." You are enforcing a huge abysmal injustice to try to cover for a tiny injustice.
Privatized fire-fighting has every single reason in the book to save all fires, because that is how they make money. If even ONE fire goes unsaved, everyone will be up in arms and saying how it is immoral and that their company is a bloodsucking parasite living off other people's misfortunes. There are many many ways for a privatized solution to prevent this situation. They could have asked the guy to sign a contract saying if you dont pay the 75$, but you want us to save your house if it catches on fire, then you will consent to paying 7500 in the case that we have to cover your ass. But because of the current violent monopoly on firefighting, no other alternatives are being explored.
Disregarding all utilitarian/arguments for effect for the moment, a government enforced firefighting is morally wrong.
It is wrong to steal and threaten people to pay for another man's misfortune.
It is wrong to steal and threaten people to pay for another man's misfortune.
It is wrong to steal and threaten people to pay for another man's misfortune.
"But wait!" you say, "If we dont make everyone pay for it, then nobody will!"
Obviously you have not worked as a waiter. Even tourists who just stop by for one meal and will never ever be in town again still pay tips for their meals, and will think you are a horrible person for not paying tips. And yet somehow waiters in good restaurants make a lot more than minimum wage.
The same can be said for food. Two women in communist Russia are in line waiting for bread. Said one to the other, "did you know, in capitalist America, the government doesn't hand out bread to the people!" The other gasped in shock, and replied "But then how will people get food?! The local bakery would have a monopoly on bread and it would charge everyone exuberant prices! And then they would be super rich because bread is a necessity and it would raise its own clone army and take over the world and subject everyone to tyranny and a life of slavery!"
Just because you can't see it, doesnt mean other people won't come up with a peaceful, cheap, voluntary solution to social problems.
|
That man should become an arsonist and set the fire station on fire. Ok maybe nothing that radical but it was sad thing and whatever happened to taxes in public goods. Oh eastern Tennessee you perplex me.
|
On October 06 2010 08:34 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 08:30 DaCruise wrote:On October 06 2010 07:59 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote:
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee. If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums? And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react! Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism. T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p
Yes, he should have paid. NO ONE is disagreeing with that. But we are not talking about freaking McDonalds or Blockbuster here where someone returned a dvd too late or shit like that.
All the arguments in this thread supporting what the firefighters did are about them doing thier job so they wont get fired or risc some stupid lawsuit.
Can you imagine this headline story?
"Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!"
In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
|
I've never said this system is good, just that the firefighter's actions were justified considering the system they have to work within.
|
On October 06 2010 08:46 Zzoram wrote:
I've never said this system is good, just that the firefighter's actions were justified considering the system they have to work within.
And I disagree,, along with the majority of people not living in NA i am pretty sure of.
|
Should just be a 75 dollar tax forcing everyone to partake in fire protection -- its a danger to other folks around you if you don't pick it up. It's not huge, just partake in it.
I'm really conservative in practice, and hate extra fees and taxes (such as the 17,000 dollar fee my uncle just paid just for permission from the county to build a house), but this is ridiculous. Safety is a pretty important feature of society, everyone should be forced to partake in safety (within reason).
|
United States649 Posts
Heres what should have happened: The firefighters save the house, HOWEVER, the man has to pay for the coverage he didn't have for the amount he had lived there , AND continue with th 75$ coverage. AND pay an extra $1K. ( Or any other amount that'd be fit, probably higher than 1K though)
|
The firemen in the majority of my state are volunteer staffed, this is pathetic and a very bad message.
|
Do they have any sympathy whatsoever? That's somebody's house, I don't care if they were being cheap... shit like taking the fire out should be top priority over money.
|
DaCruise, the fire department in the headlines is one of the municipal FDs in Obion County, Tennessee.
If you dislike what they've done, please direct your complaints to the STATE in that area.
They are not private. Fire protection is not a free market at all. Stop blaming capitalism, thank you.
|
On October 06 2010 08:56 TwilightStar wrote:
Heres what should have happened: The firefighters save the house, HOWEVER, the man has to pay for the coverage he didn't have for the amount he had lived there , AND continue with th 75$ coverage. AND pay an extra $1K. ( Or any other amount that'd be fit, probably higher than 1K though)
Except the man then wouldn't "have" to. You can't suddenly just make up a contract like that on the spot with a house burning down and make it stick.
Matter of the fact is, I'm sure it wasn't just a sudden douchebaggery decision on their part. It's probably been told to them while training that it's important NOT to put out fires for which they are not contracted.
|
Well if firefighters are expected to put out fires on properties that they are not being paid to protect, why on earth would anyone pay them at all? If they are going to accept on-the-spot payment, then wouldn't everyone just wait until something goes wrong before paying them? Obviously, if people start getting into this kind of mindset, then fire departments would cease to exist at all since there's no way to sustain such a service with that kind of on-demand payment policy. Enforcing their policy and not protecting this man's property, despite being a horrible moral decision, was a completely justifiable decision in that it preserves the idea that this is a necessary service that people need to pay regularly to maintain. Once you begin to make exceptions to your business policy by rewarding one person that is trying to abuse the system, you open the door of more people to begin making similar excuses and behaving in a similar manner.
|
I think the fire fighters did the right thing. It wasn't a nice or easy thing,but if you don't pay for the services why should they be provided? The man chose not to pay the fee for the firefighters, and as a result the firefighters didn't help. Fighting fires is a damn dangerous job, and the firefighters shouldn't be expected to risk their lives for a house that doesn't pay for their services.
Seems silly for people to make such a big deal of people who don't pay for fire protection, not receiving fire protection. In my opinion the firefighters not putting out the fire was justified.
|
On October 06 2010 08:56 TwilightStar wrote:
Heres what should have happened: The firefighters save the house, HOWEVER, the man has to pay for the coverage he didn't have for the amount he had lived there , AND continue with th 75$ coverage. AND pay an extra $1K. ( Or any other amount that'd be fit, probably higher than 1K though)
And we have a lawsuit folks.
Also, don't make assumptions about what an entire continent thinks.
Seriously, the naivety of some people in this thread is hilarious. The man got what he deserved, the fire dept did what it was suppose to do given the circumstances, stop crying foul, there isn't any.
For another perspective, try convincing the car insurance company to pay for an incident that you decided that wasn't worth paying coverage for. Everything depends on your access to your car and you can't afford the repairs, what do you think is the right thing to do for the insurance company? This isn't some capitalism at it's worst scenario or bullshit that some people are spewing. I doubt the FFs are swimming in money and the government using gold as paper weights, it's a service provided at a fee. The man decided not to buy the service, and he paid for it.
Also, the firefighters drove out to that man's house to make sure the fire didn't turn into anything big, didn't endanger lives and to check on the man.
|
On October 06 2010 08:30 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:59 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote:
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee. If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums? And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react! Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism.
Wow, somebody's proud to live outside the US.
|
On October 06 2010 08:44 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 08:34 semantics wrote:On October 06 2010 08:30 DaCruise wrote:On October 06 2010 07:59 Zzoram wrote:On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote:
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee. If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums? And if a policeman outside of his juristiction vitness a gang rape of a small child he also shouldnt react! Revolution in USA NOW before its too late and everyone have degenerated to spineless, selfish, retarded slaves of capitalism. T-T this is a house burning down with no one in it, not a rape of a child way to be inflammatory and you often see stories of off duty police men or fire fighters coming to save people. This is a property matter shit can be replaced, the guy should have just payed the fees, it's like insurance you can't just decide to start paying when you want to collect =p Can you imagine this headline story? "Firefighters fired for putting out a fire!" In all seriousness, I cant. Not even in a country with such retarded laws as the US. And if I am wrong then I guess the US is just not worth saving after all.
Um, yes.. Ever watch the show House? In real life he would have been fired 20 times over even though his character has saved a life everytime he did something outside of protocol. You live in a fantasy world if you think they wouldn't be fired or severely punished over such insubordination
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
