The Glade 4.0

In other words, you're completely unable to provide an answer as to why human life is somehow equal to property.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, let's not. This is Hellfire, Kate. It's perfectly appropriate to cuss each other out here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because in case you haven't noticed, experienced firefighters generally lose their lives fighting very large, intense fires, or doing extremely hazardous procedures like building entry. This fire had not spread to anything like that extent, nor was he fighting inside a burning building. If he had run back into the building to fight the fire or simply so that he could claim that now human life was in danger, I'd feel little sympathy for him if the fire department didn't get there in time. Granted, if he does something that idiotic they should still try to save him, but in that case he should then be promptly arrested.

The simple fact is that if the fire is still at the point where he can fight it with a garden hose at all, he really isn't in enough danger to make it an emergency. The mere existance of danger doesn't constitute an emergency, otherwise it woudl call for the fire department every time someone started a grill and would call for polcie presence any time someone crossed the street.

Moreover, if you seriously think that this fire was so serious that Cranik was somehow in danger by fighting it with a garden hose (I really fail to see how a person fighting a woodshed fire from outside the shed with a hose is in any more danger than a person attending a bonfire) then why, exactly, should the firefighters be risking their lives for someone who won't pay the fee that helps provide them with the proper equipment and traning? Not only are they volunteers, but firefighting is, indeed, hazardous. Why should they encourage behavior that will end in reduced funding, leading to less equipment in worse repair, and less training for them, thereby increasing their own level of danger? Are firefighters worth less than Cranick is? Yes, that's their responsibility as firefighters, to risk their lives but it is not their job to accept unnecessary risk, nor to accept any amount of risk the public heaps on them by using that as an excuse. They can always quit, and it's doubly easy to quit when you're not getting paid in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Way to get the wrong message, good job. In other words, you're stupid as well as an *******. Got it.

Well, DE, whatever you feel gets your point across.
I, however, am not going to resort to cussing at someone just because they're not getting my message or answering questions the way I want them too.
As rude as I'm gonna get is to call ya'll a bunch of big meanies for seemingly having no compassion and everyone self-righteously proclaiming that the guy reaped what he sowed and got what he deserved. I echo the sentiment that I hope no one in this thread ever has to be so humbled as to make a huge mistake or do something incredibly stupid and then need help.
I'm aware I'm one of 3 people here who thinks this way, I'm also aware that I'm probably considered retarded for not seeing the "logic" behind why this guy is a loser and a succubus on society. I'm ok with that.
I just disagree with ya'll and I can't "prove" anything or sway anybody and thats ok too. I don't always have to be right.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

No one said you had to cuss anyone out just because some of the rest of us do. It's personal style. You can use whatever style you like. I'm not "resorting" to cussing at someone, that's just how I prefer to address people who keep repeating the same thing without addressing points against it.



I don't see that this is particularly rude. Just inaccurate. Do you really not understand that it's not about lack of compassion or him reaping what he sowed, but rather about having compassion for all the people who would be harmed if the fire department is allowed to go underfunded?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ahh, I'm somehow stupid for demanding you explain how loss of property is equal to loss of human life, or quit making that claim by using the ambulance example? If I got the wrong message it was becuase you simply retreated into spiteful repetition of the same bullshit, and now have simply turned to name calling ebcause someone demanded you put up or shut up.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Don't... have t*head explodes*

I guess not, pooter-butt. (Did I do that right? )


For me, I have compassion for the guy who just lost his home, not for the people who *possibly* could sometime in the future lose their homes....because one guy didn't pay $75?
It would seem to me that if they were having a funding problem, that they would do something to try to resolve the problem that does NOT involve letting people's houses burn to the ground who didn't pay.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

*mops up Jeryn's head and hands you a new one*

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

No, you're stupid because you can't tell that this is now two totally separate issues: One being the topic at hand, and the second being your bullying asshattery. As for one, if you want to have a polite discourse, I'll go along with it. But as for the second, I'm not putting up with it, and if you don't like it, don't start it. I'll call you on it every time, because the only way to deal with a bully is stand up to him. You should have learned that bullying is bad by middle school.

Is that plain enough for you now?

LK, it is not just a matter of people losing their homes because of $75 one way or the other, nor of a funding problem now.

It is a problem of, once people see that this guy has gotten away with paying only once a fire starts, not once, but TWICE, that they will say "well, why am I bothering to pay?" Then one of two things happens: The city stops providing fire services to the county at all, because the citizens of the city are pissed that they are paying taxes, which they have no choice about, and county residents are getting away with not paying, or the city keeps providing it, but the dollars flowing in keep dropping resulting in poorer and poorer equipment and training.

It isn't a matter of people possibly losing their homes, or whatever (a fire doesn't necessarily have to be about losing a home), it's a matter of when. There will certainly be more fires; I'm sure this is not the first guy to be irresponsible with a trash fire knowing what poor rural areas are like. It's also a matter of the firefighters getting enough equipment and training.

Yes, they could do other things to ensure funding, like pass a county tax to pay the city instead of leaving it to individuals, or founding a county fire department. But the fact is those things haven't been done and they may or may not get done. The county government responds to the county voters and evidently the county voters have been fine with this arrangement up until now. That isn't surprising given that the fire department made exceptions in the past. Why screw up a sweet deal?

I get the distinct impression you are not really reading what I'm saying carefully since I have posted this several times now, and you keep asking the same question of why let the guy's house burn over $75? Are you really reading what I'm pointing out carefully? Or is it a matter of it making you feel like a bad person to explore the idea that there's more at stake than the issue of the guy's home? It's ok if you feel that way but it seems I am simply repeating myself here and not being heard.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're being bullied because someone demands you back up your argument? That's hilarious. Way to totally go off on an ad homeniem tangent to distract from the fact that you're just unable to justify your attempt to equate life to property.

Quit your whining. You're not "calling me" on anything; you're jsut bellyaching because I pointed out that property =/= life and you wanted to just keep right on going with the ambulance example because you already painted yourself into a corner with it and can't give up.

You can "not put up with it" all you want, but all you're doing is retrating into name calling based on the "WHAAA DE USED A NAUGHTY WORD!" issue.

I have news for you, jack, if you want to have a polite discourse, it better be with the emphasis on "discourse". A discourse is not you saying sometihng, me pointing out a problem, and then you saying the same thing over again as if it were self-evidently true without bothering to explain it. That's what your repeated use of the ambulance example without explaining how life = property, and repeated claim that him fighting the fire with a garden hose automatically means his life was in danger without addressing the fact that he could easily retreat constitutes. You don't want me to be rude? Fine. Don't engage in the typical internet broken-record tactic. Miss Manners complaints are almost always a smoke screen for someone with no point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE: I've read everything, I just can't get over my emotions (never professed to be a woman who forms opinions based on logic) of feeling sorry for the guy for losing his home whether it was due to his own actions or not.....my prob is that *had he paid $75* none of this would even be an issue and that since he didn't pay it, they let his house burn down.

All of the other stuff is irrelevant to me to the immediate fact that guy lost his house because he didn't pay.

Is there something I'm not getting as far as that one goes?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Oh, waaaa!!! Did I hurt your feelings? If you want to be rude, I'll be rude back. Seems simple to me, asshat.

Now that that, hopefully, is out of the way, what we have here is a disagreement on what constitutes danger and an emergency. The undeniable fact is that people can and do get killed fighting fires, even trained professionals. A man with a garden hose is also in danger. Roofs collapse, walls collapse, fires spread (as was amply demonstrated in this case). If a wall had collasped on the guy and killed him, or the wind blew sparks somewhere and started a fire that trapped him in a way that the garden hose would not provide escape, then South Fulton would be facing MUCH harsher criticism than they are now. Diamondeye, if you want to believe that there was no emergency and the man was not in danger, fine. Be my guest. I respectfully disagree, and I expect you to show me the same respect.

This pretty significantly undermines the argument that making an exception would prompt so many people to free-ride that the whole system would become unsustainable.

I think what you're not getting is that most of us do feel sorry that he lost his house, but we do not feel they should ahve put the fire out because in the long run that would be worse. The guy already got away with this once, and he was handling fire irresponsibly. The message people get is that they get bailed out for free.

It's a lot like a drunk with a family. I may feel bad for his wife and kids, but I don't feel the bank shouldn't foreclose if he doesn't pay his mortgage. Then, every drunk would use his wife and kids as an excuse not to pay.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Milk isn't free. Someone has to pick up the tab, and when this guy had the option, he passed. His payment to the fire district could have prevented this, but he decided not to pay. He made the conscious decision that the chance of his stuff going up in flames wasn't worth it.

Now, you're saying that others should consider his property to be worth more than he considers it to be worth.

Why?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Not at all. It bolsters it significantly. Making an exception one time is one thing; making it repeatedly makes it the policy.

Evidently, exactly what I predicted happened. He got away with having the fire department come out without him having paid. He decided he could just do the same thing in the future, so he didn't pay the next few years either. Then he had another fire and expected the same exception to be made. Pretty much proves the point. Eventually, word gets around. It doesn't need to have happened over night.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah you hurt my feelings. That's exactly what's going on here.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it? Nor, evidently are you anywhere near as interested in discourse as you claim.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How do you figure? He got away with it once, assumed he could continue to not pay except when needed after the fact and save money. He even went so far as to tell the reporters he expected them to put out the fire even though he hadn't paid.

Seems to me this is pretty clear evidence that given the opportunity, people will do exactly as this guy did, and that enabling this kind of thinking by making exceptions will only continue the practice of not paying.

Sure, a d-bag who milks the system and gets away with it will continue to be a d-bag who milks the system. The argument people have been making, though, is that letting that d-bag get away with it will induce other people to become d-bags as well. That didn't happen. This guy got away with it before, yet here we are, three years later, and the system is still running nicely with plenty of people paying their fair share.

Little House ftw!

I would believe that in order to support that assumption, you have the financial statements for the FD and coverage/subscription maps of the county? Based on the info we have, its just as accurate to assume that the FD made this change based upon falling subscriptions and the resulting increased costs.... the change from doing it and back charging was because of the increasing problem.

Except that, as far as I know, nobody is arguing that he should "get away with it". My position has been, all along, deal with the emergency first, then deal with the aftermath. Put out the fire, defuse the danger, then do what must be done to collect from the Cranicks. Just like an ambulance service. I have zero problem with the city suing them should they refuse to pay the bill.

Diamondeye, see my edit above.

Fair enough, but the same goes for assumptions that letting him freeride would destroy the system. No proof of that either. Honestly, though, the limited evidence we do have - that he was given a freebie once before and the system didn't collapse - seems like a pretty clear point in favor of my position.

Also, I'll just note that I'm in favor of massive penalties after-the-fact. Basically, the FD puts out the fire, but instead of the $75 in advance, he's charged $10,000 in arrears.