-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Firefighters watch house burn to ground.
- Thread starter Llama
- Start date
Where I live(d) Quebec, Canada, there is a law obligating you of assisting someone in danger. If you don't follow you can be trialled.
Just putting it out there that in Australia we don't have to pay firefighters to save our homes, and that when something similar happened near where I lived a few years ago we all banded together to help these people - the community and the fire fighters. I need to try and say this without coming across as putting down all Americans, but if any of you think that the fire fighters were justified in neglecting this family's home due to a bit of money (which btw the family offered to pay later) then you are fucked in the head. End of story.
EDIT: TheAmazingFlygon, I think we have something similar in Australia. Seriously, America has to be the only country in the world where this would even be contentious and not clear cut :/
EDIT: TheAmazingFlygon, I think we have something similar in Australia. Seriously, America has to be the only country in the world where this would even be contentious and not clear cut :/
The fact that this could even happen in a ''civilized'' and developed country as the USA is a sign of something. We can think what we want as long as it doesn't hurt the liberty of someone else, which is why this situation is contentious, but nothing could justify what the firefighters did; they literally put a price on saving someone's life. I think America needs to know socialism and capitalism can be a good mix; firefighters aren't part of a company, they are part of the government which is there to help it's citizen. Somethings cannot be privatized for they are services every human beings should have access to.
No people's lives were endangered in this situation.
That's not what I meant. I meant generally they put a price (75$) on saving people's life. Besides, the family in this situation could have very well be injured. Also, it doesn't justify that act: it is not because no one died or was hurt that it justifies what the firefighters did.
I have zero doubt that they would have acted if somebody's life was in danger. The article says that they did show up at the location (hence "watched it burn"), so they did respond to the call and ensure everything was ok. It was not a situation where the station operator looked up their name and decided to let it go because they neglected the premium.
No, they should not have risked their own life over a couple of animals, get over it.
No, they should not have risked their own life over a couple of animals, get over it.
No offense Stallion but the bolded section above is absurd. Even if you there is no clear "sign the dotted line for fire protection" it is clear that any fire fighting services cannot be maintained and executed without funds. Money does not appear from nowhere, someone has to pay for it at some point. It comes from your taxes obviously-- you are paying for it.
This particular town just has the allocations of funds organized differently since they don't have their own fire department.
Honestly, I cannot understand how people can shirk the importance of money. I see your "it's just money" T-Shirt and raise you a "money makes the world go round" T-Shirt.
Money is a representation of resources. If you don't have the resources and means to do things, shit doesn't get done-- period.
I am fully aware that it comes from our taxes (or government who get x amount of dollars for funding), I'm just saying though that even if someone was a tax cheat or was exempt from paying them, our fire brigade would save them. Funding does have to come from somewhere, but to let hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage happen over seventy five dollars, money the family fully intended to pay afterwards is downright ridiculous. Money is important, but I'm sorry I can't see how this whole situation isn't a disgrace to the fire brigade of the town/city in question.
A couple more points to make.
Wikipedia has revealed something I've been wondering about - what other firefighters think of this. The International Association of Firefighters (US/Canada firefighters' Union) states
Secondly, to be honest it's pretty obvious why the fire wasn't put out despite the family not having paid, and why the South Fulton Mayor spoke so uncaringly: The family live in Obion County, they get their fire service from South Fulton city, Obion County residents don't vote for the South Fulton Mayor. Meanwhile, it's unclear to me who's responsible for the fact that Obion County doesn't have a fire service.
Wikipedia has revealed something I've been wondering about - what other firefighters think of this. The International Association of Firefighters (US/Canada firefighters' Union) states
But views from others in the profession would be good also, especially as the IAFF has an obvious vested interest (in encouraging universal fire coverage since that would protect their members' jobs).http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101005007213/en/Fire-Fighters-Condemn-South-Fulton%E2%80%99s-Decision-Home said:
Secondly, to be honest it's pretty obvious why the fire wasn't put out despite the family not having paid, and why the South Fulton Mayor spoke so uncaringly: The family live in Obion County, they get their fire service from South Fulton city, Obion County residents don't vote for the South Fulton Mayor. Meanwhile, it's unclear to me who's responsible for the fact that Obion County doesn't have a fire service.
The fire burned their house and it even attacked part of their neighbor's property. When someone's whole property gets burned out, pets, souvenir, furnitures, etc., it is a situation in which the person's life is in danger. Plus, they did ignore the first calls they received from that family. They should have tried to appease the fire: it is their job. It is not because someone does not pay their taxes here in Canada that our firefighters refuse to help them. For 75$ stupid dollars the firefighters watched their house and everything they had go to waste, I don't think it's a job well done.
Describing the firefighters, the words "total dicks", "major assholes", and "fucking douchebags" come to mind.
I'm surprised that this is legal. I'm assuming that there is a law that police, firefighters, etc. are required to help people that are in need of their services. The charge should be part of their taxes, as it is in most places. Even if they are required to let the house burn down due to a measly 75 dollars, any ethical human being would've put the fire out. There is a special place in hell for those firefighters, and I don't even believe in hell. (Their punishment will be having to put out the eternal flames of damnation. Without any breaks.)
I'm surprised that this is legal. I'm assuming that there is a law that police, firefighters, etc. are required to help people that are in need of their services. The charge should be part of their taxes, as it is in most places. Even if they are required to let the house burn down due to a measly 75 dollars, any ethical human being would've put the fire out. There is a special place in hell for those firefighters, and I don't even believe in hell. (Their punishment will be having to put out the eternal flames of damnation. Without any breaks.)
It's been explained numerous times in the thread. Because more people would take advantage of this and not pay the annual fee the fire-department set.
Though I'm against for the actions that the fire-department took and definitely think there should have been a compromise.
For the same reason that if you don't have car insurance you can't call up the company and pay a normal premium for them to cover you right after you totaled your car.
Legally the firefighters have done nothing wrong, their responsibility was to take care of fires in the city and in residences that paid the fee, they were under no more obligation to help these people than anyone else in the world.
Morally though I think that they should have helped them, especially since their pets died and the firefighters would not have to have risked themselves at all, all that they would have needed to do was spray the house with the hose. They shouldn't have just let them off for free or for the $75, because that would have encouraged other people to stop paying because they know that they can just pay if something happens. They should have charged them for the full expense of the trip and possibly an extra fee for not paying in advance.
Stallion said:
Hey guys, keep in mind this is an isolated and unique case, not the norm. Wouldn't be right for me to judge Australia because a man locked his daughter up in the basement and raped her for decades, spawning offspring or for me to judge Canada for another incredibly unique and horrific event.TheAmazingFlygon said:
It's easy to look at something and when it happens in one country, think it's an horrible example of how people can be but then to look at the same event occur in America and say "Pfft, only Americans."
Not that you guys care, like any other culture or country you hold yourselves as the prime example of "civilized" and any other culture with differing views as backwards. Now isn't that quite a healthy attitude?
In fairness, Australia has volunteer fire departments. Privatised firefighting is silly; it should be paid for in taxes. However, I had never heard of this kind of case before, and as I understand, it's fairly abnormal. Like all scenarios of its kind, it's played up for emotions and drama and scare in the media.
I do feel sorry for the kids. They couldn't pay the $75.
I do feel sorry for the kids. They couldn't pay the $75.
The only problem is that these type of unique abnormal situations appear more often than not in America only; blame it on having an higher population and therefore a higher crime rate or any other unique situations such as this one, but fact is America doesn't take proper actions against these types of situations: this you pay 75$ and what not for firefighter service should have never even been allowed in the first place, yet it was. Now, I will be slightly deviating from the subject, but take for instance guns or even hate speech. They allow nearly everyone to have guns according to the second amendment made in 1791; back then, it was alright to have arms, they needed it, but now the situation changed and they still have the right to possess guns so freely which directly impacts the crime rate by increasing it. Now, on a moral level hate speech on the sole respect of liberty point is bad; hate speech destroys the liberty of others.
On the contrary, the vast majority of gun-related crimes are done with illegal possessed weapons. Gun owners are among the most stringent people and they work pretty hard to fight that image.
a.k.a. criminals break the law and are the ones hurting people with guns and getting rid of the Second Amendment wouldn't even stop people from breaking the law, imagine that.
Problem is society changes all of the time, this is a fact that looking through history can tell you. How can we determine what is "hate speech" and whether it can be condemned? When is it a matter of "people just need to grow thicker skin" and when is it "a serious verbal offense"?
Speech inciting violence sure I'm okay with making illegal and criminal, but forcing conformity and not allowing people to express their opinions or beliefs (whether I think it is offensive or not) doesn't really seem like a tenant a free society should have. If fundamentally one believes everyone is entitled to think whatever they think and speak whatever they think, how can you criminalize "hate speech"?
The same laws that supposedly violates the liberties of a minorital group (since we know any hate speech spoken by a minority group is going to be dismissed) also helped minority groups speak against the tide and change society.
Honestly, it's a slippery slope that sets an obvious and very real cause for abuse that I am baffled that any citizens of a nation would support. I'm greatly disturbed how people are forgetting the importance of the individuality for the sake of appearance and normalization.
I guess to sum it up, the reason I defend the legalization of "hate speech" is because I think the societal policy practiced by people (but not enforced by law) is to know that they have a right to be offended, but not a right to not be offended.
TheAmazingFlygon-- did it ever occur to you that we Americans don't have to give a crap about what you think our policies should be? They're our policies, for our country, our culture, our people. Every society is different, and has evolved from different histories and different geography and other factors. As someone who has long lived amongst cultures far different from my own home culture, I have come to the clear understanding that what works great for Japanese society may not work for Americans, may not work for Canadians, and so forth.
While I would say that generally speaking there should be some standards of what is considered humane or right, my question to you would be "Under what right do you have to tell us how we should do things, and what power do you have to enforce us to do it your way?"
Now frankly speaking, we Americans have the power to basically say "fuck you" to the vast majority of nations, but we are not even the greatest example of such a position. Even something like this "horrendous tragedy" is such a trivial matter it's not about to stop trade between the US, Canada or any of the European nations.
Now, China is a much greater example of a country that really is not up to the modern conceptions of human rights by any measure or standard you wish to use-- and yet they will likely soon outstrip America in terms of sheer economic power, to such a point that no country will be able to ignore or deny them. Really, what are you going to do? In the future, if China says "fuck you," you will be fucked-- and frankly, that doesn't mean that they're about to change their ways. Who is even to say that you know what's best for China better than the Chinese do?
So yes, you are being absolutely ridiculous presuming to stand on higher moral grounds than these firefighters, America in general, or actually presume you know what's best for us Americans or humanity at large.[/tangent]
While I would say that generally speaking there should be some standards of what is considered humane or right, my question to you would be "Under what right do you have to tell us how we should do things, and what power do you have to enforce us to do it your way?"
Now frankly speaking, we Americans have the power to basically say "fuck you" to the vast majority of nations, but we are not even the greatest example of such a position. Even something like this "horrendous tragedy" is such a trivial matter it's not about to stop trade between the US, Canada or any of the European nations.
Now, China is a much greater example of a country that really is not up to the modern conceptions of human rights by any measure or standard you wish to use-- and yet they will likely soon outstrip America in terms of sheer economic power, to such a point that no country will be able to ignore or deny them. Really, what are you going to do? In the future, if China says "fuck you," you will be fucked-- and frankly, that doesn't mean that they're about to change their ways. Who is even to say that you know what's best for China better than the Chinese do?
So yes, you are being absolutely ridiculous presuming to stand on higher moral grounds than these firefighters, America in general, or actually presume you know what's best for us Americans or humanity at large.[/tangent]
I'm more curious as to why a fire department doesn't exist in the town in the first place. Are mayors in Obion County too cheap to install public safety facilities across the county?
Sure, the firefighters were fairly irresponsible in handling the situation, but who's idea was it to allow a monopoly to exist on something extremely important?
Sure, the firefighters were fairly irresponsible in handling the situation, but who's idea was it to allow a monopoly to exist on something extremely important?
Are we forgetting that the fire department is a public, nonprofit entity? Their primary purpose is to put out fires and protect lives/property, not to make money, so letting a home burn down over $75 is not okay. The fee isn't to bring in profits for the fire department, it's to allow the department to function and do its job, which it failed to do here. If we're really so worried that this will suddenly cause everyone to stop paying the fee (it won't, that's ridiculous), then make an example by giving the family a much larger fee, like $2,000 or something. Even if we're just looking at this with cold, calculative thinking, the fire department just gained two and a half decades' worth of payments from the family while the family is still paying significantly less than what they're facing now.
But let's try not to view our public institutions with just that kind of thinking. There's a reason ERs can't deny people who don't have insurance. If an ER would have turned away a critically injured person because he couldn't afford it, there's no way we'd be sitting here saying "they didn't provide a service because he didn't pay the fee". This is the same here - the fire department failed here, and not only is the family probably looking at thousands and thousands of dollars worth of damages, they also lost the lives of their pets, and that's something that can't be replaced.
But let's try not to view our public institutions with just that kind of thinking. There's a reason ERs can't deny people who don't have insurance. If an ER would have turned away a critically injured person because he couldn't afford it, there's no way we'd be sitting here saying "they didn't provide a service because he didn't pay the fee". This is the same here - the fire department failed here, and not only is the family probably looking at thousands and thousands of dollars worth of damages, they also lost the lives of their pets, and that's something that can't be replaced.
Your whole argument is based on a pessimist view of things; if you can't change the situation by yourself or that your country isn't powerful enough to ''force'' another country, China for instance, to respect humans right then just give up and accept injustice. Great argument you got there. However, it doesn't stand: as long as some people, even a minority, voice their opinions, ideals, they will still live and therefore have a chance of being applied at a large scale. Like Tallerand said:'' if you whisper more and more the name of the King, the King's hope will be reborn, then his necessity and finally royalty shall be reborn''. True hope doesn't do much, but it is the base of every movement and every social changes and without it they would die. Also, quick note: we are humans before all, then we can be part of a ''race''. Our humanity is primary, our culture secondary and because of that one can't do what they want on their territory. It is not for the fact that you are a US citizen (I suppose, I could be wrong, but the example is still the same) and of american culture that you or your country can do what they want there. Sure, in theory you could for USA is able to blow the earth like 3 times, but in a moral sense you couldn't.