Firefighters watch house burn to ground.

TTS said:
Except doctors don't risk their lives in the same way that firefighters do. Doctors run the risk of exposure to bodily fluids, etc, but being a firefighter by nature is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Firefighters don't risk their lives unless they're actually going into the flames. External hosing is safe.
 
Cathy said:
I think the bigger flaw is just that the fire department hadn't considered this situation. Dispatching the fire team and putting out a fire has some market value and it's surely a lot higher than $75. It's not anti-free-market or anything to allow people to pay the full market value for that service (which may be several thousand dollars) in exchange for having their house saved when they didn't pay the $75. I guess they couldn't invent a deal like that on the spot, but it seems like it should have been considered ahead of time.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is always 20/20, I'm afraid.

You are right though, the Fire Department, moving forward, should adopt a means to charge those who aren't "insured" should they need a fire put out.

I think now finding out that the fire department refused even after the owner offered to pay the FULL expenditures that I am a little perturbed. I understand the fire dept's actions in every other aspect, but this part strikes me as a bit lazy and morally lacking. They could have still "made an example" of the family by charging them the full expenditures and saved their house, but I guess they didn't anticipate that situation.

Oh well, this will provide fuel for political fires for weeks to come.
 
As stated already, this is precisely why privatized firefighting might not work.
Although tbh, I don't see why they don't just charge the family like some 5000 or something like that. I'm sure they'd be willing to pay, but I don't think that most people would then just choose to not pay until fire.
 
First of all, I think people should actually read the link before talking about this.

The family was willing to pay any amount of money to put the fire out.

Second, if you can't just charge people post-fire and still support your fire-department, then maybe your fire-department is overblown?
 
Well, the family was fucking retarded for not paying the fee. Since fire can obviously spread and hit families who DO pay though, the fire should be put out and the entire cost of the workers time, water used, et cetera is charged to the family for not paying the per annum fee.
 
Odds are, the head of the firefighters union probably tells them not to do that and they follow it. Its a rule. Its probably not a popular rule, but a rule none the less. I'm also pretty sure, there is some more backstory we aren't getting.

edit: Agreeing with CaptKirby.
 
what i dont get is why they were willing to play "any amount of money" to save their house while it was burning, yet they won't shell out 6.25 a month to protect it...i mean come on. you can't not pay for something, and when you need it most try to get it. though i agree with ck on what the firefighters should have done, they were 100% justified.
 
Bad Ass said:
what i dont get is why they were willing to play "any amount of money" to save their house while it was burning, yet they won't shell out 6.25 a month to protect it...i mean come on. you can't not pay for something, and when you need it most try to get it. though i agree with ck on what the firefighters should have done, they were 100% justified.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that in most circumstances you can do that..

I wonder if their insurance will refuse to pay out because they didnt pay the fee.

Have a nice day.
 
Scicky said:
I'm sorry I've watched Fire-Fighter's put out a fire before and all they did was hose the motherfucker down. I'm aware that in many cases, it's alot more dangerous than that, but this was not one of those situations, there was no baby or dog or cat inside that needed saving or whatever, it was just a burning house that they could've at least bombarded with water or something.

Clearly danger was not the issue here, as soon as the fire spread to another lot, WHAM, Fire-Fighters are there and the fire is put out... on that lot. The only motivation the fire department had was making an example out of an innocent family.
Click to expand...

Actually, there were pets inside, and unfortunately they didn't get out. 3 dogs and a cat died in the fire.
 
Seriously? Well... I don't know what to think of that. I mean, now I can understand the whole danger situation, but it seems like that just makes the moral obligation even more severe. I'm pretty speechless. <__<
 
optional firefighting is fucking retarded given that your house could catch a fire from another house, at no fault of your own. you haven't paid? too bad, your house burns down even though it's not your fault
 
We used to have something like this in Britain. Not fire-specific, but a tax where everyone had to pay the same amount whether rich or poor.

This is how we responded. (And yes I'm aware it's not anything like an exact analogy, but it sprung to mind, so I'm posting it.)

I hope the neighbour sues the fire department's ass off, and the ASPCA gets them prosecuted for killing the animals, and someone punches the town's mayor in the face.

And I do blame the firefighters. They had every choice. Forget the job, forget the policy, forget the money. Once they'd arrived at the scene, to stand by and watch a building burn when you have the means to put it out is just A TOTAL FUCKING LACK OF FUCKING HUMAN DECENCY TOWARDS OTHERS.
 
Sorry cantab, and I hate grouping people and making wide generalizations-- but you brought Britain in the picture, and frankly I hate it when Europeans try to shove their values and concept of what "human decency" is on other cultures and societies.

The act of "helping others" is a great act because it is something you choose to do of your own will.

The act of "not choosing to help others," is frankly not evil. I find the your concept of "moral obligation" ridiculous-- you help others because it is good and so you choose to do so, but simply not choosing to do so, being inactive, is not wrong.

What is wrong is thinking you have the right to tell people that they have an "obligation to help others," when helping others is something you do out of voluntary good will.
 
ChouToshio said:
Sorry cantab, and I hate grouping people and making wide generalizations-- but you brought Britain in the picture, and frankly I hate it when Europeans try to shove their values and concept of what "human decency" is on other cultures and societies.

The act of "helping others" is a great act because it is something you choose to do of your own will.

The act of "not choosing to help others," is frankly not evil. I find the your concept of "moral obligation" ridiculous-- you help others because it is good and so you choose to do so, but simply not choosing to do so, being inactive, is not wrong.

What is wrong is thinking you have the right to tell people that they have an "obligation to help others," when helping others is something you do out of voluntary good will.
Click to expand...

America is the country best at "shoving its values in others"
Ex. Iraq
 
ChouToshio said:
The act of "not choosing to help others," is frankly not evil. I find the your concept of "moral obligation" ridiculous-- you help others because it is good and so you choose to do so, but simply not choosing to do so, being inactive, is not wrong.
Click to expand...
Right there you're imposing your own value and calling it a fact. I disagree with you here. You say cantab is bringing "European values" into this. Are you trying to make your "American value" the "true" value?
 
My apologies Firestorm, but I believe you are missing my point.

I am saying that each culture and each person has different perspectives-- there is no right or wrong here, so it is inappropriate to state your opinions as correct fact.

Essentially, I am not the one labeling others as lacking human decency. "Human Decency" is not something definable, and something that should not so easily be attacked.
 
And since when is helping people out a European ideal? He was simply comparing the situation to a European tax-riot which I think is a bit extreme but that's besides the point.

I also don't get why you had to single out European's, cause it's so much better when everyone else forces their values on you right?

Anyway, yeah, you might not HAVE to feel obligated to help them, but if you DON'T feel the slightest bit obligated to help, you're probably a fucking dick. There's my two cents.

Like, do you think it's decent to kill a dog? Or maybe 3? Do think it's decent to set someone's house on fire? Then why is not saving those dogs and not protecting that house a priority? I'm not saying they're the same thing, obviously directly killing a dog is alot more malicious than not running in there and saving it. But the outcome is the same.
 
You did try to define human decency in your post after calling his definition wrong, which is why I brought it up. In my opinion, if you have the power to help someone and you stand by, then yeah, you're kind of a dick. I do understand the dilemma here, but that's why most places use a public system in the first place.
 
ChouToshio said:
The act of "not choosing to help others," is frankly not evil.
Click to expand...
No, because I'm not sure any omission could be "evil" - I feel the word perhaps should be reserved for acts. But I don't have to call everything I disagree with - even disagree with strongly - "evil". "Morally wrong" and "evil" are not synonymous to me. But that's a little off topic.

I think Firestorm put it best with "kind of a dick.
 
Personally, I think letting the house burn was just a terrible waste of items, whether they be valuables, raw materials, food, clothing, etc. I know that has nothing to do with the decision making and fees and what not, but shit there might have been a really nice piano or leather jacket or sofa in there!
 
Firestorm said:
You did try to define human decency in your post after calling his definition wrong, which is why I brought it up. In my opinion, if you have the power to help someone and you stand by, then yeah, you're kind of a dick. I do understand the dilemma here, but that's why most places use a public system in the first place.
Click to expand...

My apologies since I did not make my post clear.

What I meant to say was that my "definition" is not any sort of ultimate truth, but simply an alternative interpretation that is equally valid. Morality is a subjective subject, and to a degree (which I believe this falls in) we all have the right to our own interpretations. That is why I hate it when people (and there is a significant cultural divide between Europe and conservative Americans on this issue) so easily point fingers and label people over the subject.

By simply pointing out the possibility for disagreement on the issue, I meant to refute the premise that inaction is clearly (because it is not by any means clear) a "FUCKING LACK OF FUCKING HUMAN DECENCY," which is a very strong accusation.

Because frankly, that is irrational and unfair.



@Cantab-- I think you're splitting hairs, but here I will rephrase it:

In my opinion, choosing not to help others is not immoral nor unethical.

You are not making the world a better place by doing so, but then you are not committing crimes either-- you are not doing anything, and thus not doing anything wrong. This is a matter of opinion that can fairly be taken either direction, so it is unfair to accuse people of lacking human decency over this issue.
 
They're fucking assholes.

I suppose that's a reason firefighting is covered by the city taxes in most places.

Chou, you're being an idiot. They not only did not help, they let thousands of dollars in property burn to the ground. They could certainly have made more money afterward charging the people for helping them, but they didn't. They preferred to just stand around to taunt, and threatened everyone else to pay their wage, which only results in negative PR. Hopefully the town/state/whoever controls the fire department will make it public instead of a random 75$ charge. (It's unfortunate there were no other threatened buildings nearby as the fire department would then have been required to act.)

Once you claim everyone is entitled to their own equally valid opinion you enable fringe interpretations. I could argue choosing to kill people is not immoral or unethical. This is a matter of opinion that can fairly be taken either direction, so it is unfair to accuse people of lacking human decency over this issue.

We claim that these people lack human decency not because that it's a metaphysical truth that helping people is good, but to show our personal discontent. When there's a considerable group of people that show similar distaste and can explain why, it convinces others that maybe their decision was wrong and encourages change towards a position that is beneficial to more parties.

In my opinion, choosing to accept multiple distinct opinions as mutually valid is terrible as it discourages discussion around the issue and encourages apathy regarding it.
 
So I say you're wrong and you say I'm wrong.

What are you going to do about it? Nothing you can do. Period.

That is where the discussion ends-- so all you can do is live and let live. Or start killing each other, which would completely unreasonable here.

I will leave on the note that I am not persecuting or attacking the other side just because they have a difference of opinion. You are the ones choosing to be aggressive and offensive against my personal views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top