linkmtb0minime wrote:
Ok, well, that forum is saturated with liberal-minded young adults, as opposed to the older, more conservative group found here in D&STunnamednewbie13 wrote:
You pretty much described a huge chunk of the internet.mtb0minime wrote:
This story is also being discussed in a forum mostly full of liberal young adults. It's so funny.
And I mean real young adults. Or maybe I should say late-teens/early-twenties.
How so?mtb0minime wrote:
This story is also being discussed in a forum mostly full of liberal young adults. It's so funny.
Good point... that kind of nullifies the validity of making fire service fees optional.FEOS wrote:
If people had been inside, the firefighters would've been required to rescue them, payment be damned. Since there was nobody inside, everyone got to watch a nice show and listen to Elmer complain about his poor decision making.
Well said.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Maybe they should have had different levels of subscription. Like $25 gets you the first 10 minutes of fire fighting and then you are charge $100 per minute your fire goes over. $50 gets you the $25 subscribtion with kitten stuck in tree prevention and we won't bang your wife while you are at work.
Last edited by Acerider (2010-10-07 07:11:07)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you're just sadistic.Acerider wrote:
Can't believe some idiot actually attacked a firefighter after the incident. Probably some guy who didn't know the whole story...
More on topic, the firefighters shouldn't have put it out, but was putting out the fire and overcharging the guy out of the option? Like, if the people dont pay for the fire service, dont deny it to them, just vastly extort them for it. It's good capitilism, and besides, then no one can complain afterwards.Well said.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Maybe they should have had different levels of subscription. Like $25 gets you the first 10 minutes of fire fighting and then you are charge $100 per minute your fire goes over. $50 gets you the $25 subscribtion with kitten stuck in tree prevention and we won't bang your wife while you are at work.
did you just say a firefighter shouldn't put out a fire.Acerider wrote:
Can't believe some idiot actually attacked a firefighter after the incident. Probably some guy who didn't know the whole story...
More on topic, the firefighters shouldn't have put it out, but was putting out the fire and overcharging the guy out of the option? Like, if the people dont pay for the fire service, dont deny it to them, just vastly extort them for it. It's good capitilism, and besides, then no one can complain afterwards.Well said.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Maybe they should have had different levels of subscription. Like $25 gets you the first 10 minutes of fire fighting and then you are charge $100 per minute your fire goes over. $50 gets you the $25 subscribtion with kitten stuck in tree prevention and we won't bang your wife while you are at work.
Firstly, I was implying that they shouldn't put it out because of their contract. However, Morally, they shouldve put it out. I wish they did put it out... but they were following they're contract. I'm sorry, but as morally wrong as the firefighters were being, they were FOLLOWING THEIR ORDERS. Sure, they chose the greater of two evils, but they still followed orders. Besides, the guy should've had his house insured, and his possesions, fires and disasters happen, and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about them. No matter how hard you try to prevent them. The guy should've paid his tax. Sure, they shouldve put out the fire, but it's the guys fault. Call me a no-hearted capitalist, but that's how I stand.FatherTed wrote:
did you just say a firefighter shouldn't put out a fire.Acerider wrote:
Can't believe some idiot actually attacked a firefighter after the incident. Probably some guy who didn't know the whole story...
More on topic, the firefighters shouldn't have put it out, but was putting out the fire and overcharging the guy out of the option? Like, if the people dont pay for the fire service, dont deny it to them, just vastly extort them for it. It's good capitilism, and besides, then no one can complain afterwards.Well said.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Maybe they should have had different levels of subscription. Like $25 gets you the first 10 minutes of fire fighting and then you are charge $100 per minute your fire goes over. $50 gets you the $25 subscribtion with kitten stuck in tree prevention and we won't bang your wife while you are at work.
I know. But, you cant blame the firefighters, only to a point. Guy shouldve taken precautions. It was his job, he didnt do it. So then the firefighters did their job.Turquoise wrote:
Money isn't everything.
True.... my main beef is with the voluntary nature of this system. Some things are too important to be voluntary.Acerider wrote:
I know. But, you cant blame the firefighters, only to a point. Guy shouldve taken precautions. It was his job, he didnt do it. So then the firefighters did their job.Turquoise wrote:
Money isn't everything.
The good news is that something will hopefully be done after people raise a stink to prevent this from happening again.
The firefighters probably wont be sleeping well at night either. They have to live with their decision, and I bet not all of them wanted to stay behind and not help.
I don't know how these things work, but could the government or the county pay for one or two proffesional firefighters to serve with the volunteers?Turquoise wrote:
True.... my main beef is with the voluntary nature of this system. Some things are too important to be voluntary.Acerider wrote:
I know. But, you cant blame the firefighters, only to a point. Guy shouldve taken precautions. It was his job, he didnt do it. So then the firefighters did their job.Turquoise wrote:
Money isn't everything.
The good news is that something will hopefully be done after people raise a stink to prevent this from happening again.
The firefighters probably wont be sleeping well at night either. They have to live with their decision, and I bet not all of them wanted to stay behind and not help.
what a shit argumentAcerider wrote:
Firstly, I was implying that they shouldn't put it out because of their contract. However, Morally, they shouldve put it out. I wish they did put it out... but they were following they're contract. I'm sorry, but as morally wrong as the firefighters were being, they were FOLLOWING THEIR ORDERS. Sure, they chose the greater of two evils, but they still followed orders. Besides, the guy should've had his house insured, and his possesions, fires and disasters happen, and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about them. No matter how hard you try to prevent them. The guy should've paid his tax. Sure, they shouldve put out the fire, but it's the guys fault. Call me a no-hearted capitalist, but that's how I stand.FatherTed wrote:
did you just say a firefighter shouldn't put out a fire.Acerider wrote:
Can't believe some idiot actually attacked a firefighter after the incident. Probably some guy who didn't know the whole story...
More on topic, the firefighters shouldn't have put it out, but was putting out the fire and overcharging the guy out of the option? Like, if the people dont pay for the fire service, dont deny it to them, just vastly extort them for it. It's good capitilism, and besides, then no one can complain afterwards.
Well said.
The right thing to do morally is put it outFatherTed wrote:
what a shit argumentAcerider wrote:
Firstly, I was implying that they shouldn't put it out because of their contract. However, Morally, they shouldve put it out. I wish they did put it out... but they were following they're contract. I'm sorry, but as morally wrong as the firefighters were being, they were FOLLOWING THEIR ORDERS. Sure, they chose the greater of two evils, but they still followed orders. Besides, the guy should've had his house insured, and his possesions, fires and disasters happen, and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about them. No matter how hard you try to prevent them. The guy should've paid his tax. Sure, they shouldve put out the fire, but it's the guys fault. Call me a no-hearted capitalist, but that's how I stand.FatherTed wrote:
did you just say a firefighter shouldn't put out a fire.
morally they should have put the fire out but they shouldnt have put it out anyway
do you understand how little sense that makes?
You could, but you'd have to pay for them somehow. It just makes more sense to have a tax that covers this sort of thing.Acerider wrote:
I don't know how these things work, but could the government or the county pay for one or two proffesional firefighters to serve with the volunteers?Turquoise wrote:
True.... my main beef is with the voluntary nature of this system. Some things are too important to be voluntary.Acerider wrote:
I know. But, you cant blame the firefighters, only to a point. Guy shouldve taken precautions. It was his job, he didnt do it. So then the firefighters did their job.
The good news is that something will hopefully be done after people raise a stink to prevent this from happening again.
The firefighters probably wont be sleeping well at night either. They have to live with their decision, and I bet not all of them wanted to stay behind and not help.
Council rates pays for garbage pickup.JohnG@lt wrote:
Or when they fail to pay for garbage pickup and the trash piles up in their back yard.mtb0minime wrote:
How come there aren't stories like this when someone's power gets shut down after they failed to pay their electricity bill?
Ok so that still doesn't make any sense.Acerider wrote:
The right thing to do morally is put it outFatherTed wrote:
what a shit argumentAcerider wrote:
Firstly, I was implying that they shouldn't put it out because of their contract. However, Morally, they shouldve put it out. I wish they did put it out... but they were following they're contract. I'm sorry, but as morally wrong as the firefighters were being, they were FOLLOWING THEIR ORDERS. Sure, they chose the greater of two evils, but they still followed orders. Besides, the guy should've had his house insured, and his possesions, fires and disasters happen, and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about them. No matter how hard you try to prevent them. The guy should've paid his tax. Sure, they shouldve put out the fire, but it's the guys fault. Call me a no-hearted capitalist, but that's how I stand.
morally they should have put the fire out but they shouldnt have put it out anyway
do you understand how little sense that makes?
However, the right thing to do legally is obey the rules, and the rules were to extinguish fires of the people who pay. So they followed the rules. That's what I'm saying.
Alright, here. Let's break it down, shall we?FatherTed wrote:
nope still not making sense.
Exactly. So the firefighters just did the safer option and obeyed the rules.SenorToenails wrote:
Acerider is making this some sort of moral dilemma--it isn't. The dudes house burned down because he didn't pay the fee he knew he would need to pay if he wanted fire protection. His neighbor did, and subsequently their home did not burn down. Yea, it would have been 'the good thing' to put out the fire on the guys home...but if they did, then no one would pay at all or until they needed the fire department and the quality of fire protection for everyone would more than likely decrease.
But relying on people to voluntarily pay into an emergency system is always going to breed disaster.SenorToenails wrote:
Acerider is making this some sort of moral dilemma--it isn't. The dudes house burned down because he didn't pay the fee he knew he would need to pay if he wanted fire protection. His neighbor did, and subsequently their home did not burn down. Yea, it would have been 'the good thing' to put out the fire on the guys home...but if they did, then no one would pay at all or until they needed the fire department and the quality of fire protection for everyone would more than likely decrease.
Yes, and for urban/suburban areas, I would agree fully. If you live in a rural area that can't afford it's own fire department and instead needs to contract it from another town, I can see how one might make it opt-in. The guy is a moron for not paying $75.Turquoise wrote:
But relying on people to voluntarily pay into an emergency system is always going to breed disaster.SenorToenails wrote:
Acerider is making this some sort of moral dilemma--it isn't. The dudes house burned down because he didn't pay the fee he knew he would need to pay if he wanted fire protection. His neighbor did, and subsequently their home did not burn down. Yea, it would have been 'the good thing' to put out the fire on the guys home...but if they did, then no one would pay at all or until they needed the fire department and the quality of fire protection for everyone would more than likely decrease.
Certain things really should be part of the condition of living somewhere.