Just because a question is “subjective” in that way doesn’t mean that some answers aren’t more “right” than others. I doubt you would try to claim that all answers to “Should we be allowed to kill people we don’t like” are equally valid, for instance.
What, you don’t want to take the chance that you might pleasantly surprise me?
Yes, that’s right. But I’m not sure how that addresses my point.
Nah, not really. Since I think you do understand my position, feel free to imagine my responses, finding them satisfactory only insofar as I’ve met your low expectations.
Let me put it this way. I know what you say your position is, but I don’t understand it insofar as it seems completely illogical to me. Thus, I’m asking questions about similar situations in an effort to either see that you apply these same rules across the board or encourage you to realize that you are being unfair to the people caught up in this situation.
OK, I accept that. Although I have to note: from the outset I’ve said that I’m not criticizing anyone “caught up in this situation”; rather, I’ve explicitly stated multiple times that I understand the various viewpoints and their ramifications. So it’s not clear to me how it’s possible that I’m being “unfair” to anyone. So there’s that.
As to whether I’m consistent:
Of course not. I don’t want to live in Obion County, so I don’t.
I’ve never had an employer not pay me (lucky me). So, the second question is inapplicable. Although perhaps it would be pertinent to what I think is your point to mention that I’ve written open-source software (i.e., free to download source code, free to use).
Because if I was a firefighter, that’s what I’d do. That is, if I was prevented from fulfilling what I see as my proper role as a firefighter, I would cease being a firefighter (that is, I’d quit). Someone who feels differently about being a firefighter would (and obviously does) act differently.
I understand the budget cuts, and the more we squeeze out taxes, the more services we lose… that’s another argument, though.
Fact is, they had the resources to show up, to insure it didn’t spread, they should’ve just put the damn thing out.
AFAICT, you’re saying “I’m not criticizing anyone” and then criticizing them. Saying that you would have done it differently and that, essentially, anyone with a conscience would have done it differently is criticism, even if you don’t explicitly say “you’re a bad person for doing it this way.”
But you think they deserve free fire protection services. Why do you think someone else should be forced to provide what you’re not willing to?
Consider it in a hypothetical, then. What would you do *if *your employer stopped paying you for your work?
1.) No, it’s not pertinent. That was work that you *volunteered *to do, by your own free choice. This, on the other hand, would be like your boss *ordering *you to work on the open-source freeware project of his or her choice on your lunch breaks.
2.) Nitpick: That’s not what open-source means. Open-source software *can *be free to download and free to use, but it doesn’t *have *to be freeware.
That’s not what “obligation” means. If I had a child, I’d raise them as an atheist, but that doesn’t mean that I think a Catholic or a Hindu or a Muslim family also has an obligation to raise their children as atheists.
Fact is, they’ve done that in the past. *For this very same person. *And it *still *didn’t *in any way *encourage him to start paying his fair share of the costs. Do you think that the fire department could continue to provide these services to everyone else if only a percentage of the people they were serving were actually paying for it? Even though that might mean that they eventually couldn’t provide services to anyone?
And that, explicitly, is what I’ve not said, even though you insist it must be the case. As I guessed earlier, I’ve met your low expectations.
And you’ve subsequently met mine…
It appears I’m in agreement with many here.
The big moral of the story was not Cranick’s or fire dept’s actions, but that America’s hatred of taxes and embrace of hyper-libertarianism are big mistakes. I hope this story serves as a big Wake Up, America!
The first line of the linked article mentions it was a mobile home, btw.
I feel bad for the family. Because their father was lazy about paying his bills, or had fallen on tough times money-wise, they have now lost everything. I’ve seen the emotional toll a house fire can place on a family. A friend from high school lost her home in a fire, and the stress on their family was immense and long-lasting. And now the publicity has just made all that worse for this family. I voted for…they should have put it out. And then make him pay the fee before he’s allowed back on the property.
Thanks. I read the link, and whilst I’ll not bother to correct Wiki, that very entry shows how that publication hilariously combines self-contradictory sentences: there’s half a century between Boston and Dr. Franklin becoming ‘father’.
More thorough information here… CaptainMica.com
And in Ipswich, England there was organisation for fire-fighting two hundred years before Franklin’s ‘paternity’ — which I’m sure was paralleled in many other contemporary cities around the world. Transport Museum…
Theree’s nothing useful I can comment on this case, except that the situation seems to we statist socialist Europeans just another case of crazy Americana; and the righteous comments eerily mirror the libertarian viewpoints of commentators at Volokh’s on random subjects… The pleasure of fault-finding in no way disguises the fact the unfortunate Mr. Cranick had a horrible experience.
Why do you claim that something is illogical but use an emotional basis to back up a moral position.
There’s plenty of things I don’t do that I perceive as being immoral if they don’t do it. Different people are in different circumstances. I cannot afford to help the poor since I am pretty close to the poor line myself. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people that make significantly more money than they need shouldn’t be helping out the poor. I can’t even get out of the flipping house right now, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s moral for people to not do things that I only avoid because I can’t leave. I also tend to handle stressful situations poorly. That doesn’t mean I don’t expect people who can handle stressful situations to do it for others.
Digital Stimulus has indicated that he isn’t going to help out because, by not living there, he is not in the position to do so. There’s no reason he can’t expect other people who do live there to do what he considers a moral duty. It’s not complicated.
Or do you expect me to think you are immoral because you don’t travel to Africa to help with the AIDS epidemic?
I am to the left of practically anyone in this forum, and I agree with the firefighter’s decision.
Being a liberal means that you also have to trust the people to know what’s best for themselves. The people in that county set up that system (however stupid and fucked-up), Mr. Cranick made his own decision, the system they set up worked as it should.
Perhaps they will re-think their system. Or not, as is their right.
This is pretty much me. Numbers 3 through 4 make it especially odious. I’d be so f’ing grateful for #3, and the lesson that “oh, fires can affect me” that I’d probably start paying my $75 out of gratitude for saving my ass when I didn’t deserve it. I’d probably also have sent a round of pizzas to the firehouse.
The fire chief had to make a tough decision in telling the fire fighters to not put out the fire. Fire fighting is his and their job, and it probably hurt to make that decision and stand by, watching disaster befall someone… but keeping the fire company financially afloat and able to fight fires in the future is also his job. Freeloaders jeopardize the future ability of his crew to effectively fight fires in unincorporated areas, and continuously saving the asses of people who aren’t contributing demonstrates a willingness to accommodate freeloaders. Crannick already used his Get Out of Jail Free card. The fire company did him a favor before (and probably sternly reminded him at the time of the risk he ran for not having paid his fees).
In the other thread, several times people suggested that the fire company could have put out the fire and levied the costs of the operation against him later. Make Crannick pay for the combined wages, equipment usage, water usage, etc. Great idea, and maybe in that community something like that will be adopted eventually… but at the time of the fire, there was apparently no such mechanism in place for the department to actually do this. Accept the verbal pleadings of Crannick to pay “whatever it took?” Why? He probably swore he’d keep his dues up when he was helped before.
That said, if it’s demonstrated that Crannick did pay his dues in the intervening years between fires, and had genuinely forgotten this year’s payment, then I’m likely to be more sympathetic to him. If he just went without paying most/all of the time, then I’m on the fire chief’s side. He was cut some slack once. Not again.
(I also have to admit that if I were one of the fire fighters, I might have defied the chief’s orders, since at the moment, I wouldn’t have gone through the above reasoning… I’d just have the emotional tug of seeing a man lose his home.)
Cranick made a number of bets and lost. We don’t blame the stock exchange when someone loses his house playing penny stocks, so why should we be any more empathetic when someone gambles with fire department defunding multiple times and loses?
Another factor to consider is that a fire department doesn’t just appear by magic. If everyone waited until their house was on fire in order to pay, it wouldn’t matter how much they were willing to pay because there wouldn’t be anyone to offer the money to. The fire department only exists because people are willing to pay in advance.
It was not about the 75 bucks, he offered to pay it and more.
They let 3 dogs and a cat die, while they were there and had the means to prevent it. They were teaching him a lesson. He had paid the fee in the past.
I hope a beginning Alzheimers person doesn’t forget. I hope some old person does not let it slip her mind. I hope someone developing mental illnesses does not have a fire.
The International Firefighters Org. is decrying the firemen who allowed the fire to burn. Animals lovers are shocked that they could allow animals to die when they could have stopped it.
Next Sunday go ask your priest to explain faith ,hope and charity to you. Ask him why this scene was an affront.Kneel in the pew and think about how wrong this was. Go ask your Rabbi about it. He will explain it.
Ah, great. I agree. They’re not the same. If someone shirks an obligation (in this case, to pay taxes), then it’s an even stronger claim:
If you haven’t paid taxes on all of your internet purchases (assuming your a state that obliges you to do so), then you should not have any expectation of redress should the police, fire department, etc., intentionally withhold services from you.
Well maybe the dogs and cats were a terrorist sleeper cell and they were going to stage a nuclear attack next month. So by standing down, those fire men saved the lives of tens of thousands of people and baby ducklings.
So you might be the kind of person who would callously let baby ducklings die. But I can look my generic clergyperson of choice in the eye and say “Not me.”
You said that it’s both what you would have done ***and ***what the firefighters should have done. If you think that someone else’s conscience could come to a different conclusion, then you would think the first conclusion but not the second.
If you disagree with my assessment of your position, then you must acknowledge that the firefighters made the right choice by letting the house burn.
1.) Shhhhhh, you’re getting in the way of my RO.
2.) The distinction is that I’m not in here saying that everyone in Africa should be helping everyone who has AIDS and are bad people if they don’t.
As has been patiently explained to you time and again: The world does not work on imaginary future maybe money. The fire department cannot pay the salaries of its employees, the rent on its buildings, the bills for the upkeep of its equipment, if it does not receive consistent income.
[quote]
They let 3 dogs and a cat die, while they were there and had the means to prevent it.[/quite]
Cranick let his own animals die, by (a) not paying to protect them when he had the chance and (b) not getting them out of the burning house himself.
It’s such a good thing we live in a theocracy. Oh wait.
Or, perhaps, I just accept that other people can have opinions and make decisions that do not match mine.
As I’ve said – repeatedly – I understand why they let the house burn. They made a choice, just as Cranick did to not pay the $75 service fee (assuming he didn’t really “forget” it, but actively decided). The system worked as designed…it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Nonetheless, if I were a firefighter on the scene, I would’ve chosen differently. Not only that, but I think the other firefighters should’ve chosen differently. They didn’t…but that’s because they are not me.