|
On October 06 2010 09:08 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +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.
"The man got what he deserved". Who is making assumptions now?!,omg.
I must admit it shines through in this thread that some people dont have a lot of experience in life.
|
On October 06 2010 09:32 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 08:44 DaCruise wrote: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
No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff.
|
On October 06 2010 09:40 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 06 2010 08:44 DaCruise wrote: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 No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff.
You're seriously the (out of country) stereotype of why people hate the US so much. Arrogance off the charts.
|
|
|
On October 06 2010 09:40 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 06 2010 08:44 DaCruise wrote: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 No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff.
Guess what, these firefighters are not from Denmark, so don't judge their actions with your social standards.
|
On October 06 2010 09:06 LegendaryZ wrote:
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 most people would still pay. Also, they could just collect the same amount of revenue through taxes. Then of course there is the risk that people will say they just don't want fire protection and the government is robbing them, but Americans say things like that all the time anyway.
|
even if that's policy it would seem a call should have been made for PR purposes to come save the house, they would have got their money. If this fire started in the home, I'd say no chance of saving it anyway in a rural area.. but it didn't. It started by a shed and took a long time to make its way to the house, in fire fighting it is rare to have a shot at saving a home completely.
That being said there are many many things we don't know that could easily fill in the "why" as to how this happened. Fires take lots of time and man power to combat, with cuts to almost all departments nationwide its very possible that saving this home would have taken every resource they had and left the paying rural folks or the citizens who directly pay for fire open. These cuts also mean you should do everything you can to prove you're worth spending the taxes on, PR goes a long way in the fire service.
Too many what ifs to judge I guess.
|
I'd bet that his insurance would reject any claim he makes too..... He didn't do everything in his power to prevent it (which is usually a standard part of a "get out of jail free" clause that the insurance companies have), ie, he didn't pay the fee and the fire, should he have paid the fee and had it dealt with properly, would not have burned his house down.....
Basically - he's fucked.....
Bureaucracy at its finest.....
|
A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone?
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 09:50 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:06 LegendaryZ wrote:
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 most people would still pay. Also, they could just collect the same amount of revenue through taxes. Then of course there is the risk that people will say they just don't want fire protection and the government is robbing them, but Americans say things like that all the time anyway.
Why would anyone pay in advance for something that has a very small chance of happening and can be paid for anyway if it actually does happen? I understand America is full of idiots, but even idiots would figure that out.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 09:57 Nagano wrote:
A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone?
What is the moral status on freeloading off other people?
|
On October 06 2010 09:45 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:40 DaCruise wrote:On October 06 2010 09:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 06 2010 08:44 DaCruise wrote: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 No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff. You're seriously the (out of country) stereotype of why people hate the US so much. Arrogance off the charts.
Phrase the first sentence better please. It doesn't make sense.
|
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/bizarre_salon_a.html
It turns out, though, that the fire department in Tennessee was not a private for-profit fire department. It was a government-run fire department. You read that right: the fire department that refused to show up and refused to name a price at which it would show up was run by the government of South Fulton.
[...]
What's next: blaming libertarians because TSA is taking x-rays of people? Or blaming libertarians because the government is so vicious in the drug war? Or blaming libertarians because government schools are so lousy?
|
On October 06 2010 09:58 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:57 Nagano wrote:
A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone? What is the moral status on freeloading off other people?
You're saying that if you were standing there, watching as this family's house burned down, with the power to put the fire out, you would refuse because of a $75 yearly fee?
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 10:02 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:58 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 09:57 Nagano wrote:
A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone? What is the moral status on freeloading off other people? You're saying that if you were standing there, watching as this family's house burned down, with the power to put the fire out, you would refuse because of a $75 yearly fee?
I'm asking why it's ok that he get service for something that he didn't pay for. If you're argument is that nothing bad should happen to people, than that's admirable, but not possible. What kind of incentive is there to people to pay for this stuff in advance(and keep the fire department in the shape in needs to be to fight fires) if they know that they'll be saved because the firefighters are nice people?
|
Not sure where to draw the line. I mean some of the analogies people are using are kind of out there.
|
On October 06 2010 09:08 Judicator wrote:
...
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.
Seriously, the cold-heartedness of some people in this thread is disturbing. The family just lost its whole livelihood, the fire dept condemned them to a life full of misery, show some compassion, there is a distinct lack of such...
Really, how can you even compare a fire dept to a car insurance? Besides the fact that the fomer is government run, there is quite a difference between losing one object and losing everything you have effectively losing any means of existence.
Also, I highly doubt that making this one rescue would have hurt the FF finances severely...
On October 06 2010 10:09 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 10:02 Nagano wrote:On October 06 2010 09:58 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 09:57 Nagano wrote:
A non-optional subscription fee is a TAX.
I understand the points people are trying to make in defending those responsible for refusing to put out the fire. But imagine for a second those people were your family, your parents, and their entire life was just destroyed so what---the fire dept could prove a point? What happened to your human decency?
Where have your morals gone? What is the moral status on freeloading off other people? You're saying that if you were standing there, watching as this family's house burned down, with the power to put the fire out, you would refuse because of a $75 yearly fee? I'm asking why it's ok that he get service for something that he didn't pay for. If you're argument is that nothing bad should happen to people, than that's admirable, but not possible. What kind of incentive is there to people to pay for this stuff in advance(and keep the fire department in the shape in needs to be to fight fires) if they know that they'll be saved because the firefighters are nice people?
Incentive, you ask? How about the payment being mandatory? It basically already is, since the people in the city pay through taxation, which they cannot avoid. Some changes in legislation could offer the same solution for the people living outside of the city's bounds.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 10:11 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:08 Judicator wrote:
...
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. Seriously, the cold-heartedness of some people in this thread is disturbing. The family just lost its whole livelihood, the fire dept condemned them to a life full of misery, show some compassion, there is a distinct lack of such... Really, how can you even compare a fire dept to a car insurance? Besides the fact that the fomer is government run, there is quite a difference between losing one object and losing everything you have effectively losing any means of existence. Also, I highly doubt that making this one rescue would have hurt the FF finances severely. The service is only provided for a fee to the people who live outside of the city's bounds, everybody else was paying for it through taxation. It's not like everybody can simply stop paying their taxes, and as far as the people outside of the city are concerned, some changes in legislation could offer a solution.
I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
Incentive, you ask? How about the payment being mandatory? It basically already is, since the people in the city pay through taxation, which they cannot avoid. Some changes in legislation could offer the same solution for the people living outside of the city's bounds.
I'd say changing the system would be the best possible solution. However, with the system they had you can't provide people with services they didn't pay for or it just tells other people not to pay for them either.
|
I don't get why people are so disturbed about the firefighter's actions.
The person who lost his house had the the freedom to protect it from fire for a yearly fee, he chose not to utilize this fee so when his house caught fire he didn't receive the protection he chose not to pay for.
Is the policy wrong? Maybe, but what the firefighter's did was perfectly justified, and in my opinion the smart thing to do. Sure, I would want to not pay for stuff and get free stuff from others, but if they don't give me free shit I don't start calling them douchebags and going YOUR A BAD HUMAN BEING!! GIVE ME MY FREE SHIT NOW!
|
On October 06 2010 09:59 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 09:45 mierin wrote:On October 06 2010 09:40 DaCruise wrote:On October 06 2010 09:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 06 2010 08:44 DaCruise wrote: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 No. I live in a civilized country often considered nr.1 country in the world in a multitude of categories such as welfare, freedom of speech, hapiness of the population and a plethora of other stuff. You're seriously the (out of country) stereotype of why people hate the US so much. Arrogance off the charts. Phrase the first sentence better please. It doesn't make sense.
It actually makes a lot of sense. People always bash US citizens for thinking they're better than everyone else. That's exactly what you're doing here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
