I do not think this means what you think it means. You say that you accept this, and you keep taking offense at my suggestion that you think they were wrong, but then you again repeat this statement:
If you think they *should have *chosen differently, that means you think they were wrong. You can understand why someone made a choice but still think they were wrong. For example, I *understand why *Hitler made the Jews a scapegoat for everything that was going wrong in the German economy, and that *in no way excuses *what he did.
Well then please explain to me how you can think someone should have made a different decision but simultaneously *not *think that they made the wrong one. Thinking that things should be other than they are seems to me to pretty much be the definition of thinking they’re currently wrong.
But I do think the firefighters made the wrong decision and have said as much. That’s not the same as thinking they made an unconscionable decision, nor does it mean I hold them in contempt, nor that they acted immorally. Because – at least in this case – I understand their viewpoint and can thereby respect their decisions. Even if I disagree.
1.) The firefighters made the wrong decision.
2.) The firefighters did not act immorally.
3.) You respect their decision.
I think the problem is that I see these things as being mutually exclusive. If it was not immoral, how can it be the wrong decision? Isn’t that what makes it wrong? And how can you respect a decision that you think was wrong?
Yes, it says “I don’t take myself nearly as seriously as you do.”
Let’s say you’re lactose intolerant. Is it then “wrong” for someone else to drink a glass of milk, just because it’s not what you would do? Would you be saying about a group of people at a birthday party, “I would not have had my cake a la mode, and I think those people who had ice cream on their cake were wrong”?
Clearly, “what I would do” is not your criterion for determining right and wrong.
Maybe I’ve missed it in earlier posts but did Cranick have home insurance? If so, then his insurer is certainly an effected party in this situation. You’d think they would require their customers to pay for fire protection when it’s an option (or highly mark up their rates if they decline to pay).
Otherwise I can see somebody saying “My $10,000 trailer is insured for $30,000? Yeah, sure I’m going to pay my fire department dues. Right after I light all these candles.”
I’m sorry, did you just accuse me of being a troll? I guess that’s one way of getting out of actually having to explain the complete logical inconsistencies in your opinions.
And they chose to obey those orders. So either you think they were right to obey the orders, however you may think the orders themselves were the wrong call, or you think that the firefighters should have disobeyed those orders and saved the house anyway.
As I believe I’ve mentioned upthread, the reasoning behind your poll selection does not have to be identical to every other person who makes the same choice.
