His dogs and cat died. Anyone who has a pet can tell you they're not replaceable or a property.mtb0minime wrote:
Maybe it's just me and my set of morals, but I don't see how morals even come into question here. There were no human beings inside the home, no one was dying or risked dying. It was just replaceable property that burned up. Now, if there had been people inside who needed help and the firefighters did nothing, then that'd be fucked up. Fortunately that's not the case.
While that is very sad and tragic (I have a dog myself and love him very much), it's not worth risking human lives to save a common house pet.Ticia wrote:
His dogs and cat died. Anyone who has a pet can tell you they're not replaceable or a property.mtb0minime wrote:
Maybe it's just me and my set of morals, but I don't see how morals even come into question here. There were no human beings inside the home, no one was dying or risked dying. It was just replaceable property that burned up. Now, if there had been people inside who needed help and the firefighters did nothing, then that'd be fucked up. Fortunately that's not the case.
If they didn't let it burn from the start there was no risk. If it was me those firefighters would save my dog or they wouldn't be alive now.mtb0minime wrote:
While that is very sad and tragic (I have a dog myself and love him very much), it's not worth risking human lives to save a common house pet.Ticia wrote:
His dogs and cat died. Anyone who has a pet can tell you they're not replaceable or a property.mtb0minime wrote:
Maybe it's just me and my set of morals, but I don't see how morals even come into question here. There were no human beings inside the home, no one was dying or risked dying. It was just replaceable property that burned up. Now, if there had been people inside who needed help and the firefighters did nothing, then that'd be fucked up. Fortunately that's not the case.
It depends on the risk tbh, every situation is different but i'd say if there was a 95%+ chance I could save my dog and live i'd take it. For some that might be a 75%+ chance. For some, even lower.mtb0minime wrote:
While that is very sad and tragic (I have a dog myself and love him very much), it's not worth risking human lives to save a common house pet.Ticia wrote:
His dogs and cat died. Anyone who has a pet can tell you they're not replaceable or a property.mtb0minime wrote:
Maybe it's just me and my set of morals, but I don't see how morals even come into question here. There were no human beings inside the home, no one was dying or risked dying. It was just replaceable property that burned up. Now, if there had been people inside who needed help and the firefighters did nothing, then that'd be fucked up. Fortunately that's not the case.
Last edited by jord (2010-10-07 12:12:20)
i remember an episode of rescue me where a little girl begged the main dude to save her kitty kitty made it but she didntTicia wrote:
If they didn't let it burn from the start there was no risk. If it was me those firefighters would save my dog or they wouldn't be alive now.mtb0minime wrote:
While that is very sad and tragic (I have a dog myself and love him very much), it's not worth risking human lives to save a common house pet.Ticia wrote:
His dogs and cat died. Anyone who has a pet can tell you they're not replaceable or a property.
Er, once the mobile home starts to burn, if the owners dont get out the pets right away it's probably to dangerous to send in even firefighters afterward. Even putting out the fire to get to the pets probably wouldn't work because pets are quite flammable (Fur, organic matter, etc.) and as I just said, by the time the firefighters put the blaze out I doubt the pets would be alive. Those mobile homes are small. It'd lose oxygen extremely quick. Even then, the pets could still catch fire and get crushed by falling debris.
hi S3v3N
As long as you aren't footing the bill...
Yeah, Corporate pays for my smartphone.
Volunteer fire fighters are still trained and supplied with government money. It's only they're not paid a wage hence the "volunteer" part.mtb0minime wrote:
This family had to be made an example of, to be honest. If they let them pay the bill later, then everyone would opt out of the fee and just pay if their home caught fire. Since hardly anyone would pay the bill, the volunteer fire department would not have the funding necessary to maintain their equipment and would not be prepared in the event someone's home does catch fire.
In the end, it all comes down to some retarded red-necks being retarded and looking everywhere for a scapegoat instead of taking responsibility for their retardedness. Retards.
To bad he seemed like a nice guy, Saving $75 proved to be a false economy.
theyre just whiskey tangos. and not a single fuck was reallly given that dayHunter/Jumper wrote:
To bad he seemed like a nice guy, Saving $75 proved to be a false economy.
Even in a rural area it isn't necessary to have to pay for fire service. there is one full time Fire department in my county (located in a city of less than 20,000) of 40,000 people and about 435 sq. miles. The rest is covered by volunteer fire fighters and if needed the City will respond (free of charge). If my house catches on fire they put it out imagine that (really would it be hard to ad that $75 to property taxes, they would make more as I'm sure more people pay property tax than think to pay a fire fund). Hell my neighbors garage caught on fire and we had 2 local volunteer forces here to put it out.SenorToenails wrote:
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.
Apparently you've never been in a rural area. Hell outside of the city limits you can pretty much burn what you want. Hell even in my small town you could get away with burning trash.DrunkFace wrote:
Isn't that illegal?JohnG@lt wrote:
It was a mobile home. The value of the home was probably minuscule and not worth covering. I mean the guy wasn't even paying for trash pickup, he was burning it in his front yard (10 feet from his front door).
No, he just lives in Australia where it is a singularly terrible idea to go around burning things.jaymz9350 wrote:
Even in a rural area it isn't necessary to have to pay for fire service. there is one full time Fire department in my county (located in a city of less than 20,000) of 40,000 people and about 435 sq. miles. The rest is covered by volunteer fire fighters and if needed the City will respond (free of charge). If my house catches on fire they put it out imagine that (really would it be hard to ad that $75 to property taxes, they would make more as I'm sure more people pay property tax than think to pay a fire fund). Hell my neighbors garage caught on fire and we had 2 local volunteer forces here to put it out.SenorToenails wrote:
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.
Certain things really should be part of the condition of living somewhere.Apparently you've never been in a rural area. Hell outside of the city limits you can pretty much burn what you want. Hell even in my small town you could get away with burning trash.DrunkFace wrote:
Isn't that illegal?JohnG@lt wrote:
It was a mobile home. The value of the home was probably minuscule and not worth covering. I mean the guy wasn't even paying for trash pickup, he was burning it in his front yard (10 feet from his front door).
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Good point. Most of the US it's not a big deal unless your in the southwest.Spark wrote:
No, he just lives in Australia where it is a singularly terrible idea to go around burning things.
How so? Do you really think people are going to hang out inside of a burning building? They don't have to save things. Only people. Or things of people who have paid the fee, should the fire spread, which is what I understand happened in this case (why they showed up).Turquoise wrote:
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.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It just demonstrates that fire service is ultimately mandatory. There's no reason for a fire department to let people burn, and by extension, since anyone is a potential fire victim, everyone should pay with taxes.FEOS wrote:
How so? Do you really think people are going to hang out inside of a burning building? They don't have to save things. Only people. Or things of people who have paid the fee, should the fire spread, which is what I understand happened in this case (why they showed up).Turquoise wrote:
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.
It's just more organized, practical, and follows common sense.
well he did have a double wideCybargs wrote:
i bet he has a yankee killing license11 Bravo wrote:
maybe you should pay next time
That's a relative term. They do most of what makes this country work, when it does.Cybargs wrote:
theyre just whiskey tangos. and not a single fuck was reallly given that dayHunter/Jumper wrote:
To bad he seemed like a nice guy, Saving $75 proved to be a false economy.