Quote :

"Later someone went to the fire station and assaulted one of the fire fighters."

10/6/2010 4:51:59 PM

It really boils down to conservative vs. liberal politics. I bet that local/county government champions itself on running with the lowest taxes ever.

This would be a lovely topic for political science class. Those dirty liberals in the municipality are FORCING everyone to pay taxes on a fire service they rarely need.

10/6/2010 4:57:51 PM

PWNT

is what I say. Should have paid the $75. It will be interesting to see what the insurance company says.

10/6/2010 5:25:13 PM

The mortgage company and or insurance company should have been collecting the $75 and paying it out of escrow if they were smart.

10/6/2010 6:02:00 PM

I would assume it is sent out yearly like a water bill or something.

10/6/2010 6:19:04 PM

she shouldn't have let her house catch on fire in the first place.

10/6/2010 6:22:07 PM

Man, there are some soulless people in this thread. Let a man's dwelling/belongings burn to the ground over $75? Wow. Pitiful.

10/6/2010 6:53:33 PM

^ Bullshit.
Many of us would gladly pony up charity money to help someone in need.
Just because we would personally go out of our ways to help our fellow man doesn't mean we expect everyone else to.
Everyone's situation is different.

10/6/2010 6:56:33 PM

What?

10/6/2010 6:57:09 PM

What's so hard to understand about that? I give money to charity and I help my family and friends in need. That doesn't mean I expect you to help my family and friends in need. Nor do I expect a city fire department to help people who are out of their jurisdiction and chose not to pay for their services.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:02 PM. Reason : l]

10/6/2010 7:00:04 PM

Quote :

"PWNT is what I say. Should have paid the $75."

You wouldn’t say this if it were you or someone you knew in that situation. You (and most everyone else in this thread) would be bitching about how wrong/etc. it was.

10/6/2010 7:00:52 PM

Ah, you would not expect firefighters standing right there in front of a burning house with fire trucks and hoses to put out a fire? Your logic is flawed.

10/6/2010 7:01:51 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus

Scroll down "Rise to power and wealth"

10/6/2010 7:02:21 PM

Quote :

"It really boils down to conservative vs. liberal politics."

No. No it doesn't. Jesus this has nothing to do with fucking goddamn politics.



A fucking contract exists between non-incorporated homeowners and the Fire Department. If we can't enforce fucking legal contracts impartially and by extension the law (which in a Republic, is theoretically a contract of consent between the governed and the government), then we abandon the rule of law.

I'm not saying that putting this man's house out would have lead to anarchy, but the fact of the matter is that responsibility for ones own actions (or inaction) exists notwithstanding any external sympathies we might or might not have for this homeowner who, according to his own words, simply didn't want to pay the $75.

10/6/2010 7:05:39 PM

I just want to point out that all the flamboyant mumbo jumbo bullshit doesn't mean anything, because he was trying to pay them the $75 and there seems like there is no due date on paying the $75, unless your house is on fire.

10/6/2010 7:08:16 PM

The ludicrousness of that point has been covered thoroughly.

10/6/2010 7:09:15 PM

Yeah, I bet it has.

10/6/2010 7:10:09 PM

^^^^ it’s wrong to let someone’s house burn down, while you sit in front of your fire truck twiddling your thumbs.

We are human beings with brains that we use to think, and any thinking person should realize that this was time to bend the rules a bit to put the fire out. The Nuremberg defense didn’t work for <Godwin’s law>, and it’s senseless to pretend it’s a valid defense when everyone in this thread knows what the right thing to do was if they were the firemen, and they know what they would have wanted done if they were the homeowner.

Personal responsibility goes both ways, and is more that what you think a lawyer wants you to do.

10/6/2010 7:11:07 PM

Quote :

"I just want to point out that all the flamboyant mumbo jumbo bullshit doesn't mean anything, because he was trying to pay them the $75 and there seems like there is no due date on paying the $75, unless your house is on fire."

I think the due date is anytime before your house catches on fire.

10/6/2010 7:11:43 PM

OK, I would really like to see that in writing.

10/6/2010 7:12:39 PM

Not to mention that if they had came to put the fire out, it may have never caught the neighbor’s house on fire. If I were that neighbor, i’d be pissed that i paid my $75, and they allowed my house to catch fire. They didn’t do their jobs, even when they got their $$$.

10/6/2010 7:13:41 PM

this is a moral issue first, government issue second, even if you want to make this in to a libertarian thing that's fine, just put out the fucking fire and then send the woman a bill for all the work/resources they put in, you know like an ER visit/any emergency/basic human reason, the firefighters/policy makers in this situation seem about as dumb as the trolls trying to spark political debate from this right now

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:16 PM. Reason : k]

10/6/2010 7:14:39 PM

I also want to point out if you are a fire fighter and stand to bear watching someone life being burned away and just shrug is off you are worthless human that should not even be a fire fighter. In fact, whoever care up with this fee and alleged 'due date' is just as worthless.

10/6/2010 7:17:11 PM

To the "He said he would pay anything, charge him a large fee" crowd, this is the failure of a city administrator or whoever wrote the policy. You can't expect the firefighters that were working to suddenly be like "yeah, give us $5k and we'll put your fire out", they were doing their jobs.

To the "BUT THERE WERE PETS IN THERE!!!!" crowd, I would never want a firefighter to go into my burning house and risk his life to save a dog, cat, hamster, or goldfish. It is the owner's responsibility to remove the animal if they care enough. If there had been a person in the house, they would have been obligated to help.

I think the fire department did the right thing. If you don't pay your insurance bill, BCBS isn't gonna suddenly pay for your bills and then just charge you a fee.

10/6/2010 7:18:12 PM

^^^ exactly.

We’re humans, not robots, we can use our own judgement. Imagine that.

Quote :

"You can't expect the firefighters that were working to suddenly be like "yeah, give us $5k and we'll put your fire out", they were doing their jobs."

Yes you can.

It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, etc., etc..

I guess parents just need to start teaching their kids not to be lemmings.

Quote :

"I think the fire department did the right thing. If you don't pay your insurance bill, BCBS isn't gonna suddenly pay for your bills and then just charge you a fee. "

But doctors and hospitals will still treat you, and worry about payment later.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:20 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 7:18:33 PM

Quote :

"it’s wrong to let someone’s house burn down, while you sit in front of your fire truck twiddling your thumbs."

Why?

10/6/2010 7:19:58 PM

Goodnight - the trolls are too obvious here.

10/6/2010 7:21:13 PM

^^ why is it wrong to let someone’s house burn down, while you let the latest in fire-fighting technology sit idly behind you?

10/6/2010 7:22:07 PM

Quote :

"I think the fire department did the right thing. If you don't pay your insurance bill, BCBS isn't gonna suddenly pay for your bills and then just charge you a fee."

that's not the proper analogy, the firefighters in this situation are like the doctors deciding to help a patient, not the insurance company

10/6/2010 7:22:39 PM

^^ yes. What obligation does one person have to expend their resources to protect someone else's private property when they refuse to pay for such protection?

10/6/2010 7:23:26 PM

Quote :

"You wouldn’t say this if it were you or someone you knew in that situation. You (and most everyone else in this thread) would be bitching about how wrong/etc. it was."

I probably would be a little less outspoken about it but in the back of my mind I would def. be wondering why they didn't pay the $75.

Would I need to feel bad for them if they totaled their car in an accident and didn't have insurance to cover their loss? Probably, but in the back of my mind I would be wondering why they didn't have insurance.

If these guys had put the fire out regardless of whether or not he paid the $75 then how many people would be encouraged to pay their $75. No One.

Principles are slowly going away in this country.

10/6/2010 7:23:41 PM

^^ you’re generalizing the issue too much.

No one has any reason to do anything, but society didn’t evolve this way.

^ You are thinking too narrow-mindedly. You are implying that the best solution was for the house to burn down. When the best solution was for the firefighters to put the fire out, and the homeowner to pay the costs of putting the fire out. This would result in both the fire being fought, the neighbor (who paid their $75) not having to worry about their house catching fire, and everyone else feeling secure in knowing they got their money’s worth.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:26 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 7:24:39 PM

Quote :

"Principles are slowly going away in this country."

Principles like putting out a fire when you've got a firetruck right beside you

These guys were probably volunteer firefighters anyway, if you are a volunteer firefighter you're presumably doing it because you want to help people, right?

10/6/2010 7:28:08 PM

I am narrow minded and you are a moron

10/6/2010 7:28:45 PM

Quote :

"OK, I would really like to see that in writing."

When you contract their services they are obligated to give you something in writing; not before.
Quit being a dumbfuck.

10/6/2010 7:31:18 PM

Quote :

"^^ you’re generalizing the issue too much. No one has any reason to do anything, but society didn’t evolve this way."

No I'm not. Society evolved upon the concept of mutual reciprocation. We form social groups because it is beneficial for our survival as a society to do so. It is also natural for any social group to gradually exclude free-riders or those who act in a manner contrary to the benefit of the group.

This is as clear-cut a case as it gets. The man who owned the house made a deliberate decision not to opt into a mutually beneficial contract with the society providing the service. When it came time for that service to be provided . . . he didn't get it. This is exactly how societies function.


It would be a travesty if we were talking about someone who couldn't pay the fee because they were ill, disabled, etc. Then I think we could make a case for condemning the actions of the FD, but in this case? Nope.

10/6/2010 7:31:19 PM

game. set. match.

10/6/2010 7:34:42 PM

alright this is prob my last post since the political baiting is becoming very obvious but just ignore the morality idea entirely then if need be, it's basic human logic to prevent a destruction that would be costly to the society as a whole when you have the means to easily prevent it

I seriously doubt the cost of water and manpower that were already at the scene outweigh destroying a property and sending a member in to financial distress that will prob now be a strain and cost to the society around her because she lost all everything, that's the type of common sense and individual decisions libertarianism is probably based on anyways

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:37 PM. Reason : k]

10/6/2010 7:35:28 PM

Quote :

"it's basic human logic to prevent a destruction that would be costly to the society as a whole when you have the means to easily prevent it"

Well, since the destruction here wasn't costly to society as a whole...

10/6/2010 7:38:55 PM

^^^^ You’re still generalizing too much.

When you take into consideration that people have had fire-fighting squads for literally thousands of years, going back to the greeks and romans, it’s easy to see that we as a people view the issue of a house burning down differently than anything else. Fighting fires isn’t merely a service, its an expectation of living in societies, and has been so for thousands of years.

By the nature of fires, individuals can’t really fight fires themselves. It MUST be a task delegated to a group of people.

Saying simply that he doesn’t deserve it because he didn’t pay the fee ignores the cultural mores that have developed around firefighting. If it was simply a matter of payment or contract, the homeowner offered to pay whatever costs it took to put the fire out.

Considering this, it boils down to a matter of incompetence, laziness, or negligence on the part of the firefighters. They control the scare tools to fight fires, that it’s not feasible for individuals to own, and they refused to use this unique power in a responsible way.

10/6/2010 7:39:19 PM

Quote :

"when you have the means to easily prevent it "

sounds like "means" = $75 in this case

^firefighters get erections when houses catch fire. trust me, I am sure they would have loved to put this out.

10/6/2010 7:42:29 PM

Quote :

"Considering this, it boils down to a matter of incompetence, laziness, or negligence on the part of the firefighters. They control the scare tools to fight fires, that it’s not feasible for individuals to own, and they refused to use this unique power in a responsible way."

Was there anything ever said, either way, about whether or not the firefighters would have faced punitive action for disregarding what may, or may not, have been a directive from the folks that employ them, or if such a directive was ever issued?

If they were specifically told by a superior to not combat fires in situations like this one, you cannot make arguments for laziness, negligence, or incompetence. Other traits/shortcomings, perhaps. But not those three.

10/6/2010 7:43:09 PM

Quote :

"Well, since the destruction here wasn't costly to society as a whole..."

huh? property is destroyed, land is destroyed, a woman who could have been beneficial to the economy is now probably going to be a drain on it

10/6/2010 7:43:22 PM

She already was draining the economy by not paying the $75...

what else do they chose not to pay???

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ..]

10/6/2010 7:44:56 PM

Quote :

"huh? property is destroyed, land is destroyed, a woman who could have been beneficial to the economy is now probably going to be a drain on it"

Oh?
And for how long?

The land is not destroyed - it's still there.

Do you think she's going to stop working (assuming she wasn't retired already)?
Do you think she's going to never buy anything else, ever again?

Do you for certain where any assistance she'll be getting will be coming from?
And I'd like to know about what size scale you're talking when you use terms like "society" and "economy".

10/6/2010 7:47:16 PM

Quote :

"If they were specifically told by a superior to not combat fires in situations like this one, you cannot make arguments for laziness, negligence, or incompetence. Other traits/shortcomings, perhaps. But not those three. "

I can.

There has been a few occasions at my last job where I ignored supervisors directions at my better judgement. If what you’re doing is the right thing to do, you will be vindicated 99.99% of the time. If these firefighters had put the fire out, we probably wouldn’t have heard of this story.

10/6/2010 7:47:22 PM

Well, then, go join a municipal fire dept or shut the hell up.

You've got an extraordinarily rosy view of some aspects of life.

10/6/2010 7:48:28 PM

haha

it’s rosy for me to expect firefighters to have the decency to put out a fire?

wow

their sole purpose is to put out fires. I don’t see how this is a difficult equation.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 7:49:35 PM

Quote :

"She already was draining the economy by not paying the $75..."

haha alright bud you're comparing 75 dollars to the loss of thousands and thousands of dollars in property, and that 75 dollars was in the past, I'm talking about the present scenario of something burning to ruin and nothing being done to prevent it

I really doubt you guys would make serious arguments out of this stuff in real life or serious debate, if you want to argue over semantics on the internet that's fine, I feel like a sucker for being baited/trolled here so I'm out of here

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:50 PM. Reason : k]

10/6/2010 7:49:54 PM

Quote :

"it’s rosy for me to expect firefighters to have the decency to put out a fire?"

That's not what I'm talking about.

10/6/2010 7:50:30 PM