The problem here pal is that the entire society we are talking about in this thread (i.e., the residents of Fulton County, TN) decided to cover their firefighting needs through voluntary payments. They debated a tax several times and voted it down. They’ve had this system in place for decades.
So, your little show of being the protector of the common man against the uncaring masses won’t fly here–it’s a complete sham.
So I have to be a city planner or one of their County officials to call a system that let a guy’s house burn down while Firemen stood ten feet away stupid and broken? 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.
That’s fine - I lived in a town that covered the volunteer fire department entirely out of voluntary payments. Difference is that they put the fires out at ANYONE’'S house, regardless of whether or not they had contributed anything at the last bake sale.
That’s how things are run in a civilized society. Letting someone’s house burn down? Idiots.
He did search the entire dwelling. Luckily, a small dwelling 'twas.
That’s what I get for skimming.
Le sigh. I guess you’ll never get it. You’ll never get some perspective. You think everyone should live their life the EP way, and if they don’t, then they are idiots who should be forced to. I prefer to allow people to make their own decisions and arrangements with other people.
Because we believe firefighters should stand around and watch someone’s house burn down? Perhaps we don’t WANT to “get it”.
Or perhaps, we’re not the ones who need to. If these are the results of such a system, then something is seriously fucked up. Letting someone’s house burn when you’re right there, and have the means to take care of it is immoral.
I’m totally cool with a person being free to exercise their own stupidity, even if it puts themselves in danger.
What is less cool is when a person’s stupidity puts others in danger.
It seems to me that we have two sides here. The first side says he didn’t pay his fee/it is unfair for the residents of the town to foot the bill for a county freeloader.
The other side is saying, they should have put it out anyway.
SO…
For all of you that think the that the fire department should have put it out, put your money where your mouth is.
I will collect donations via pay pal and I will forward the money to the city fire department to pay this gentleman’s $75 on his replacement house.
With all the extra money that I collect I will pay the fire fees for other people that have elected to not enroll.
My email addy is in my profile.
Send those donations now.
I will report back in a couple of days of all the $$ I collect.
Anybody want to take bets on the amount of donations?
I’m not sure if you’re kidding, but I fully expect the following to happen:
A sizable number of people will donate $75, to make sure no one in that area is without fire protection. Why? Because they’re liberals and that’s what they do. They see suffering, remove fault, and then pick up the tab.
A smaller number of people will offer money for restoration, building materials, furniture, clothing, meals, etc. Even though the guy has insurance. Again, why? Because they’re liberals, and that’s what they do.
Lastly, there will be an even smaller number of people, that will donate to his legal defense team so that he can properly punish the municipality and the fire department for their insolence. I don’t want to say what group is going to do this, but they will, and they’ll win.
By extension though, the neighbour was just as stupid as Cranick. Everyone in that area happily abides by the system in place. They know there is a chance their neighbour doesn’t have protection, and DECIDED to participate–they were okay with that risk.
If the neighbour’s house had caught fire and burned to the ground, what is the guy supposed to say? Should he THEN demand that Cranick be FORCED to pay the subscription fee? The time to make those demands is a bit late in the game. A game the happily participated in because it meant they paid $75 instead of a proposed $130
Cranick didn’t act alone in this. And although I personally see Cranick’s actions as culpable in putting others in danger, he didn’t come up with this on his own. Others put themselves in danger. They freely move into, and then lived, in this system. It’s 20 years too late to suddenly decide the risk is too high.
In other words, *Cranick’s society *doesn’t care the same way you do.
It has only been 9 hours, but so far the running total is $0
Too silly to even respond to
That word defense, I don’t think it means what you think it means. And why would the idijt de jour win? It would be like suing State Farm because they did not cover your accident because you did not pay the premium. No payment no coverage. Seems like a simple concept, but a bunch of people here don’t seem to get it.
emackknight I never get involved in these discussions but you’ve even irked me enough. Would you shut the fuck up about liberals when you don’t know a damn thing about them? I am liberal and don’t intend to give a red cent to this benighted county.
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.
Oh, and for the record, I had the little ironic italics over “defense,” I was playing a joke based on all the other stupid legal defense donations made to idijt de jour like James O’Keefe. But the sad reality is that people see this as an action done TO Cranick by the FD, not to himself by himself.
Tonge in cheek, stop being such a liberal and unbunch your panties.
Maybe they will now.
Thanks for nicely illustrating what I said in my first post to this thread. You don’t like the result of people’s arrangements, so you think someone had a moral obligation to achieve the result you want achieved. Why can’t you just STFU and let people arrange their affairs in their own way?
Maybe, but they didn’t the last three times a house burned down. Or after a barn (that may have included a horse) burned down. Or even the last time this happened to Cranick.
His neighbours seem fine with the risk.
And as I write that, I look out my window and notice how freakin close my left neighbour is. I have no idea what he’s doing in there that might be putting me at risk. But there is nothing I can do. How much control over him can I as a neighbour have? Thank og I have a municipal fire department to put the fire out AFTER it starts, and AFTER it destroys part of my house.
Maybe that’s the issue here. Part of living in society is accepting the risks that come with it, imposed on us by other people.
I have a counter proposal: why don’t you shove your smug bullshit up your ass?
All I have been saying all along is the system they had in that area clearly sucked. How do I know? A guy’s house burned down while people who’s job it is to stop a house from burning down watched. If you don’t think there’s anything wrong with that at all then I am sorry but there is something wrong with you.
Personally, I care insofar as his not having coverage made his home a greater danger to everyone around him *with *coverage. If everyone is covered, you can start controlling fires as soon as they’re reported. If some people opt out, you have to let the fire take its course until it threatens covered property, at which point it’s potentially much more dangerous.
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.
You know, I was going to respond to this, but then I realized you’re trolling.
Cite?