# WTF? Pay Up or We Let Your House Burn Down? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 6, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210 "2010-10-06T03:08:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/221 "2010-10-08T14:44:29Z")
Card carrying liberal here, retired hippy and all that. Yes it is all about choices. The community made a choice, which was to _not_ provide fire services directly but to contract with a neighboring municipality to provide those services on a paid subscription basis. This isn’t necessarily a crazy choice. We have here a rural county with low population and presumably few fires. Maintaining a fire house with actual fire equipment and training of firemen (salaried or volunteer) to provide for a rare need might reasonably be viewed as unnecessary duplication (even if the cost per taxpayer was low) when the municipality next door has excess capacity (equipment sitting around, not too many fires to fight) and is happy to accept additional revenue from subscription fees. The next relevant choice was made by Cranick. He chose to _not_ avail himself of the voluntary subscription service. He made this choice despite his own sad experience with the possibility of fire on his property. He apparently, by his own statements, believed that he would be provided this service anyway. Whether he was a craven freeloading asshole or merely someone unable to rationally analyze risk / benefit scenarios is a fun discussion, but does nothing to change the situation. Fact was, he gambled and lost. He put his money on red too often, and this time the ball fell on black. Too bad for him that his choice turned out badly. The Municipal fire department also made a choice. When informed that a non-subscriber had a fire, they chose to remain in their firehouse. This seems a perfectly reasonable decision. Why should this _municipal_ fire department mobilize and roll out, incurring expenses and potentially endangering themselves (by traffic accident if nothing else), merely because some _non-customer resident of their county_ had a fire? Whatever your business goods or services may be, I’m pretty certain you do not rush out to provide them to every non-customer who enters your county. They, like you, remained in their business office / firehouse awaiting the possibility of serving an actual customer. And sure enough, they got a call from a paid subscriber, that being Cranick’s neighbor. They quite properly made the further decision to roll out and _protect his property from fire_ which apparently they did in a professional manner. And while they were there, they also quite professionally investigated the possibility of danger to human life at Cranick’s house. Determining that there was none, they maintained their professional position, protecting the property of their paid subscriber, until the danger from fire was past. This, of course, coincided with the final burn-down of Cranick’s house. Whereupon they left. I am not seeing any wrongdoing on the part of the fire department here. Nor on the part of the county officials who put this system in place. Nor on the part of the county voters who ultimately ratified the system by re-electing those officials. The only fault here is that of Cranick, who made a choice that was arguably \_\_\_\_\_\_ (unfortunate; sad; bad; stupid; moronic; craven; acquisitive; insensitive; asshole-ish…. You pick). And the only one who directly lost was-- Cranick. All is in balance, the world is in harmony. Now, my hippy dippy socialist side sees a greater “societal loss” here, in that the entire community is lessened by the value of Cranick’s home, possessions, and even his very residence in that community. And so I too would argue that a higher good would have been served if the county in question did not allow the choices above. A county fire department supported by a mandatory tax base would have prevented Cranick’s loss, and the societal loss as well. (We suppose so, anyway, although we do not really know how successful fire suppression of a burning trailer would have been. But that’s not been the issue in contention.) And I’m glad that most communities in the First World embrace this socialist philosophy. I suspect that Fulton County will likely move somewhat in this direction now too. Cranick will then have to move somewhere else to exercise his “choices”. And maybe he should get himself a kitten. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/222 "2010-10-08T15:03:53Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@emacknight](#): > > > > Think about every frivolous lawsuit that nets some idiot millions. > > Cite? > [@](#): > > For instance, in our last issue we mentioned a 1972 law that holds everyone who carries a product responsible for its flaws, regardless of whether they made it or merely supplied it. Also, many remember the case last year in which a Virginia judge sued a dry cleaner for $65 million after they allegedly lost his pants. Although the courts ruled in favor of the dry cleaning company, **the company was eventually forced to go out of business as a result of the legal fees**. All in all, frivolous lawsuits cost American businesses over $865 billion per year, according to the Pacific Research Institute. That’s a whole 2.2 percent of the United States’ annual GDP spent on tort costs, compared to the United Kingdom’s 0.8 percent and Japan’s 0.8 percent. From: [America’s Best Companies](http://www.americasbestcompanies.com/magazine/articles/frivolous-lawsuits.aspx) On review that didn’t net the guy millions. But a good indication of what the municipality/FD might face. [Top 5 most frivolous lawsuits](http://printedowl15.blogspot.com/2010/09/most-frivolous-lawsuits.html) [Here](http://www.newser.com/tag/13082/1/frivolous-lawsuits.html) is a whole host of others. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/223 "2010-10-08T15:06:22Z")
This is America, you can sue anybody for anything if you have the inclination, time, and money to do so. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/224 "2010-10-08T15:11:07Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > So glad to hear you’re moving out to Bumblefuck Tennessee to start a volunteer fire department. > > Oh, wait, what’s that, you’re blowing hot air out your ass? What a shock. No, I’m merely reserving my right to call those in Bumblefuck Tennessee who vote against funding a fire department through taxes a bunch of idiots. It can potentially lead to situations where a neighbor who has not paid his subscription (idiot) will have his house burn down and increase the risk to everyone for a major fire that takes out many houses. Fire protection is a common interest item,that should be paid for by everyone. It is one of the cases where coercion is required (taxes) to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. Otherwise you’ll get those like Rand Rover who will quibble about whether or not it is “responsibility” or and “obligation” and insist that without a penalty they don’t have to pay. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/225 "2010-10-08T15:16:37Z")
[QUOTE=Quimby] If you had to be an expert in a topic to criticize it, you would be able to fit the entire internet on a floppy disk. [/QUOTE] No, there’d still be porn. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/226 "2010-10-08T15:28:26Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Card carrying liberal here, retired hippy and all that. > > Yes it is all about choices. The community made a choice, which was to _not_ provide fire services directly but to contract with a neighboring municipality to provide those services on a paid subscription basis. This isn’t necessarily a crazy choice. We have here a rural county with low population and presumably few fires. Maintaining a fire house with actual fire equipment and training of firemen (salaried or volunteer) to provide for a rare need might reasonably be viewed as unnecessary duplication (even if the cost per taxpayer was low) when the municipality next door has excess capacity (equipment sitting around, not too many fires to fight) and is happy to accept additional revenue from subscription fees. > > The next relevant choice was made by Cranick. He chose to _not_ avail himself of the voluntary subscription service. He made this choice despite his own sad experience with the possibility of fire on his property. He apparently, by his own statements, believed that he would be provided this service anyway. Whether he was a craven freeloading asshole or merely someone unable to rationally analyze risk / benefit scenarios is a fun discussion, but does nothing to change the situation. Fact was, he gambled and lost. He put his money on red too often, and this time the ball fell on black. Too bad for him that his choice turned out badly. > > The Municipal fire department also made a choice. When informed that a non-subscriber had a fire, they chose to remain in their firehouse. This seems a perfectly reasonable decision. Why should this _municipal_ fire department mobilize and roll out, incurring expenses and potentially endangering themselves (by traffic accident if nothing else), merely because some _non-customer resident of their county_ had a fire? Whatever your business goods or services may be, I’m pretty certain you do not rush out to provide them to every non-customer who enters your county. They, like you, remained in their business office / firehouse awaiting the possibility of serving an actual customer. > > And sure enough, they got a call from a paid subscriber, that being Cranick’s neighbor. They quite properly made the further decision to roll out and _protect his property from fire_ which apparently they did in a professional manner. And while they were there, they also quite professionally investigated the possibility of danger to human life at Cranick’s house. Determining that there was none, they maintained their professional position, protecting the property of their paid subscriber, until the danger from fire was past. This, of course, coincided with the final burn-down of Cranick’s house. Whereupon they left. > > I am not seeing any wrongdoing on the part of the fire department here. Nor on the part of the county officials who put this system in place. Nor on the part of the county voters who ultimately ratified the system by re-electing those officials. The only fault here is that of Cranick, who made a choice that was arguably \_\_\_\_\_\_ (unfortunate; sad; bad; stupid; moronic; craven; acquisitive; insensitive; asshole-ish…. You pick). And the only one who directly lost was-- Cranick. All is in balance, the world is in harmony. > > Now, my hippy dippy socialist side sees a greater “societal loss” here, in that the entire community is lessened by the value of Cranick’s home, possessions, and even his very residence in that community. And so I too would argue that a higher good would have been served if the county in question did not allow the choices above. A county fire department supported by a mandatory tax base would have prevented Cranick’s loss, and the societal loss as well. (We suppose so, anyway, although we do not really know how successful fire suppression of a burning trailer would have been. But that’s not been the issue in contention.) And I’m glad that most communities in the First World embrace this socialist philosophy. I suspect that Fulton County will likely move somewhat in this direction now too. Cranick will then have to move somewhere else to exercise his “choices”. > > And maybe he should get himself a kitten. Very well said, but my I remind you this is the pit, not some hippy sharing circle. In the future, please cuss a bit more. What I don’t get is this notion of “societal loss," in that, why do we suddenly care about his possessions. Last week we didn’t give a shit what he did with his stuff. He was burning garbage, how do we know what he was burning and the value of it? I guess said another way, does Cranick have the \*\*\*right \*\*\*to destroy his own possessions? Do we have any power to stop him? Pretend for a moment that he wanted his house to burn down, should we stop him (removing safety from the equation)? And because this is the pit: yesterday I spilled coffee on my shirt, ruining it. There was a loss to society of about $29.95, what do we do? Ban coffee? Implement coffee drinking regulations? License coffee drinkers? What ever “logic” we’re applying to this case needs to be applicable to a wider range of cases. We shouldn’t become outraged at the loss of (let’s say) a $50,000 house, but not give a shit about a $50,000 car, or $50,000 worth of electronics/art/wine/cheese. What you are in essence trying to suggest is that society has an obligation to protect its assets. A rather awkward and bizarre concept. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/227 "2010-10-08T15:35:55Z")
I would think at least the local government would be interested in protecting a house that pays them $1000 or more in property taxes each year. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/228 "2010-10-08T16:25:13Z")
The “societal loss” is made up in part of the actual value and, as **control-z** says, the tax base of the community. But on a more esoteric level, us pinkos believe that there is some intrinsic value in the society itself, those individuals and families that are its constituent parts, and their interactions with each other. This is diminished when those affected suffer a loss. Especially a serious financial loss that may make them homeless. Oh, and **emack** , fuck all that goddamn cussing and shit, it hurts mah kitteh’s ears. 😃 And somebody pass the bong. It isn’t a hippy sharing circle without a bong. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/229 "2010-10-08T16:31:18Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > From: [America’s Best Companies](http://www.americasbestcompanies.com/magazine/articles/frivolous-lawsuits.aspx) Okay, so there’s one example where the guy got, um, no money at all. For his frivolous lawsuit. Good job proving your point there. > [@](#): > > [Top 5 most frivolous lawsuits](http://printedowl15.blogspot.com/2010/09/most-frivolous-lawsuits.html) None of that gives any argument for why these are frivolous. If you think they do, I’ll prove that you’re a retard. 1.) You’re a tard. 2.) You’re a tard. 3.) You’re a tard. 4.) You’re a tard. 5.) You’re a tard. See, look, I proved that you’re a tard with exactly the same support as you just gave me for those lawsuits being frivolous. > [@](#): > > [Here](http://www.newser.com/tag/13082/1/frivolous-lawsuits.html) is a whole host of others. And a list of a whole bunch of other suits that were filed. Not that succeeded. Really, all you’ve proven here is that you’re another moron braying about “frivolous lawsuits” without anything to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/230 "2010-10-08T16:49:38Z")
You do not let a man’s house burn down over 75 bucks. It is wrong. The punishment for such a small transgression is way overboard. If it is about the money, i am sure he learned his lesson and would be grateful if the fire was put out. He would gladly pay the money. If you think allowing a mans house to burn down is a good lesson ,you are a penurious, nasty vengeful prick. and should be ashamed for harboring such base feelings. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/231 "2010-10-08T16:53:47Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You do not let a man’s house burn down over 75 bucks. It is wrong. The punishment for such a small transgression is way overboard. If it is about the money, i am sure he learned his lesson and would be grateful if the fire was put out. He would gladly pay the money. If you think allowing a mans house to burn down is a good lesson ,you are a penurious, nasty vengeful prick. and should be ashamed for harboring such base feelings. Did you read the goddamn thread? At all? He has done this before! He did not learn his lesson and never will. He was letting other people pay the cost for his inaction. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/232 "2010-10-08T17:00:38Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@emacknight](#): > > > > From: [America’s Best Companies](http://www.americasbestcompanies.com/magazine/articles/frivolous-lawsuits.aspx) > > Okay, so there’s one example where the guy got, um, no money at all. For his frivolous lawsuit. Good job proving your point there. You know, you deliberately left out the statement following my link: > [@emacknight](#): > > On review that didn’t net the guy millions. But a good indication of what the municipality/FD might face. Upon even further review, it seems the phrase “frivolous lawsuit” is by definition one without merit and which is not likely to succeed. I’m not exactly sure which part you take such offense to, but the article specifically states that the cost of the lawsuit drove the dry-cleaner out of business. It also seems that there is no way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If I post a million dollar verdict, you say it’s not frivolous ([Liebeck v McDonalds](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck) as an example). In the end, we get to go back and forth playing a retarded little semantic game, while neglecting the fact that Cranick could file suit against the municipality, the dispatcher, and the fire department (perhaps also to all fire firefighters in attendance). Whether or not he is successful isn’t nearly as important as the _cost to society_ his lawsuit would bring, which was the point of my statement. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/233 "2010-10-08T17:06:00Z")
> [@control-z](#): > > I would think at least the local government would be interested in protecting a house that pays them $1000 or more in property taxes each year. Do you honestly think his home is worth $200,000? The median house price for the county is half that. Hell, [this](http://www.tn-realestate.net/multilist/asp/public/propertydetail.asp?agencyid=0&bgcolor1=003366&bgcolor2=B3BCA9&bgcolor3=cccccc&fontcolor1=white&fontcolor2=black&fontcolor3=black&linkcolor=000099&linkcolor2=F00&lid=405372) is what you can get for $63,000. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/234 "2010-10-08T17:18:05Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You do not let a man’s house burn down over 75 bucks. It is wrong. I would change these sentences to read: A man should not let his own house burn down over 75 bucks. It is foolish. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/235 "2010-10-08T17:24:43Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You do not let a man’s house burn down over 75 bucks. It is wrong. The punishment for such a small transgression is way overboard. If it is about the money, i am sure he learned his lesson and would be grateful if the fire was put out. He would gladly pay the money. If you think allowing a mans house to burn down is a good lesson ,you are a penurious, nasty vengeful prick. and should be ashamed for harboring such base feelings. You know what, YOU let this man’s house burn down. So I trust that you are writing this on your way to his neighbourhood, where you personally will see to it that each and every resident has paid the $75 fee, thus preventing any house in the future from burning down. Tell us, what will you do when they refuse? Intimidate them? Steal the $75 from them and make the payment on their behalf? Or are you planning to personally cover the $75 for all of the residents on your own, including all of the other FD that have this arrangement (remember there are at least two that said they wouldn’t have gone, and one said maybe). This has happened to at least three other houses (and one barn), did you know that? So now how outraged are you? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/236 "2010-10-08T17:50:39Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > \ And somebody pass the bong. It isn’t a hippy sharing circle without a bong. That I think we can all agree on. 🙂 > [@kidchameleon](#): > > \ Hell, [this](http://www.tn-realestate.net/multilist/asp/public/propertydetail.asp?agencyid=0&bgcolor1=003366&bgcolor2=B3BCA9&bgcolor3=cccccc&fontcolor1=white&fontcolor2=black&fontcolor3=black&linkcolor=000099&linkcolor2=F00&lid=405372) is what you can get for $63,000. And it’s a nice, non-flammable brick, too! ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/237 "2010-10-08T18:14:01Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > If it is about the money, i am sure he learned his lesson and would be grateful if the fire was put out. He would gladly pay the money. I love that you’ve posted this when anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the background of this incident would realize that it’s already been proven 100% wrong. IF YOU’D BOTHERED TO READ ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THIS SITUATION, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THEY TRIED THAT. THE FIRST TIME HIS HOUSE CAUGHT FIRE. HE WAS NOT GRATEFUL AND CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO PAY THE MONEY. YOU FUCKING IDIOT. > [@emacknight](#): > > You know, you deliberately left out the statement following my link I know, because you took all the fun out of it by pointing out that it wasn’t relevant. However, you still included it for some reason, so I decided to mock you for it anyway. > [@](#): > > I’m not exactly sure which part you take such offense to, but the article specifically states that the cost of the lawsuit drove the dry-cleaner out of business. The objection would be the fact that it disproves your claim that juries regularly hand people millions of dollars with no good reason. > [@](#): > > Whether or not he is successful isn’t nearly as important as the _cost to society_ his lawsuit would bring, which was the point of my statement. No, it wasn’t. You were very clearly talking about the possibility of him being handed a large sum of money in reward for being an idiot: > [@](#): > > Think about everything you know about the US legal system. Think about every frivolous lawsuit that nets some idiot millions. > > This thread is a pretty good indication of what a “jury of his peers” thinks. Juries \*do not \*hand out large sums of money for no reason. Anytime someone claims that a lawsuit with a large payout was “frivolous,” it turns out that they hold that opinion from having a very limited understanding of the actual facts of the case. Kind of like people who come into this thread saying that if only the fire department had saved Cranick’s house, he would have been soooooo grateful and paid his fee faithfully forevermore. I will agree that the legal system doesn’t work properly; the rich have way too much power, either to keep bringing frivolous suits or to keep defending themselves against legitimate ones. But one way in which it is not broken is in the amount of money it _awards_, which \*was \*your objection. ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/238 "2010-10-08T19:07:15Z")
@drachillix > [@gonzomax](#): > > Failing to perform a detailed search for a small animal is in your eyes animal cruelty? These men did not “fail to perform a detailed search,” they didn’t do ANYTHING. > [@gonzomax](#): > > Well then fuck you, and your lack of respect for the lives of firefighters. I come from a family where everyone has served in the military, on the police force or as a firefighter, including myself. Can you say the same? To say I have a lack of respect for the lives of anyone is ludicrous and plain not true. I never stated that I thought anyone should put their own life in jeopardy to save a pet, but there were actions that could have saved the lives of those animals without any risk to human life. Further, if anything, my post shows that I care for the lives of animals and people by posting the follow up question about a human being trapped inside and where the line is drawn. A fully reasonable question considering the proven link between apathy for animal life and apathy for human life. > [@gonzomax](#): > > Why you think its a chargable criminal act not to risk your life to save a cat it completely beyond me and is honestly far more crass and shitheaded than letting the damn house burn down! No one said these men had to “risk their life”, according to eye witnesses the fire was more than controllable in the beginning when they first arrived on scene. It should also be noted that nowhere in my post did I say that these men should be charged with a crime. > [@gonzomax](#): > > What kind of fucking bizzaro world do you live in?" I live in a world where if I can help a fellow man (or animal) I will, because it’s the right thing to do. > [@gonzomax](#): > > How far up your ass is your head? I don’t know why you feel the need to be so vulgar and insulting instead of simply posting a logical disagreement, but if you prefer to be hard behind a keyboard that’s your choice. Odds are you’re just a punk who wets his pants in the face of real confrontation. > [@gonzomax](#): > > Go ahead, I dare you to justify this batshit insane idea you seem to have. Oh wait, can’t say batshit, it might be considered expoitative to bats. I’m not sure what the word “expoitative” means, could you define it for me? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/239 "2010-10-08T19:17:41Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > If it is about the money, i am sure he learned his lesson and would be grateful if the fire was put out. He would gladly pay the money. > > I love that you’ve posted this when anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the background of this incident would realize that it’s already been proven 100% wrong. > > IF YOU’D BOTHERED TO READ ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THIS SITUATION, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THEY TRIED THAT. THE FIRST TIME HIS HOUSE CAUGHT FIRE. HE WAS NOT GRATEFUL AND CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO PAY THE MONEY. YOU FUCKING IDIOT. > > I know, because you took all the fun out of it by pointing out that it wasn’t relevant. However, you still included it for some reason, so I decided to mock you for it anyway. > > The objection would be the fact that it disproves your claim that juries regularly hand people millions of dollars with no good reason. > > No, it wasn’t. You were very clearly talking about the possibility of him being handed a large sum of money in reward for being an idiot: > > > [@](#): > > > > Think about everything you know about the US legal system. Think about every frivolous lawsuit that nets some idiot millions. > > > > This thread is a pretty good indication of what a “jury of his peers” thinks. > > Juries \*do not \*hand out large sums of money for no reason. Anytime someone claims that a lawsuit with a large payout was “frivolous,” it turns out that they hold that opinion from having a very limited understanding of the actual facts of the case. Kind of like people who come into this thread saying that if only the fire department had saved Cranick’s house, he would have been soooooo grateful and paid his fee faithfully forevermore. > > I will agree that the legal system doesn’t work properly; the rich have way too much power, either to keep bringing frivolous suits or to keep defending themselves against legitimate ones. But one way in which it is not broken is in the amount of money it _awards_, which \*was \*your objection. Take your mittens off when you type , Are you suggesting this is a special case? Do you really think there wont be others? I guess everybody else gladly paid their 75 and in your own total ignorance, you think it wont happen again. What is your reasoned response to the next guy? Do we have a committee go to fires and vote? There will likely be similar ,but of course not identical cases, to come up. Bitching about one guy who you can joyously hate ,does not keep you from far more difficult decisions in the future. Nobodies house should be allowed to burn down ,when it can be stopped. Fuck the 75 bucks. Fuck your childish anger. It was wrong . ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210/240 "2010-10-08T19:21:05Z")
> [@mgalindo0824](#): > > I never stated that I thought anyone should put their own life in jeopardy to save a pet, but there were actions that could have saved the lives of those animals without any risk to human life. Yes, it’s really a shame that the owner of the house didn’t pay a measly $75 a year to keep his pets safe, or try to get them out of the burning house. > [@](#): > > I live in a world where if I can help a fellow man (or animal) I will, because it’s the right thing to do. Why do you think the firefighters had any more obligation to rescue the pets than other bystanders? How about the owner of the pets? Wouldn’t he have the greatest obligation to protect them? > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you feel the need to be so vulgar and insulting instead of simply posting a logical disagreement, You appear to be new here. This is a forum called The BBQ Pit. It’s designed for rants and personal attacks. If you don’t want to open yourself to personal attacks and vulgarity directed againt you, don’t post in this single subforum. There are threads on this very topic in at least one or two other forums, currently, where you can discuss the whole thing without ever getting called a fucking retard. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what the word “expoitative” means, could you define it for me? If only there were some [way](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+exploitative) to [find](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploitative) the [definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitative) of a word [online](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exploitative). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-pay-up-or-we-let-your-house-burn-down/556210.md?page=13)