Firefighters show up, watch house burn to ground

taxes pay for government funded services. If you don't believe the fire department is government funded then your simply dumb. This would never happen in places where I grew up in New England. The mayor and all the firefighters would be locked up for doing something this ignorant.

And to your first statement, I'm sure these people didn't vote for the jackass that did come up with this so called "extra fee."
 
Sorry I dunno why I posted that I didn't really mean fucks like you at all. I also misunderstood. I didn't realize this was a super rural area. Hope you forgive me. I'm honest. I pay my taxes and all and I'm not a fan of welfare myself. I live in Boulder which is full of self entitled people, and it is annoying as shit. Mostly just try to keep my head outa politics here cause you get brainwashed as shit. Not really sure why I called you a fuck, sometimes on the internet we all just wanna be devils advocate, but thats dumb.

E-Hug-it-out Bitch.
 
He's a house owner, therefore he is paying taxes for government services. I don't see how everyone refuses to believe that Fire departments are made possible by tax dollars, not "extra fees". The extra fee maybe bought them an extra hose or something? 75 dollars is nothing compared to what this family payed the government for the last year.
 
property taxes fund the fire department

not sales tax, not income tax, not airport departure tax

the property owners in the area do not pay any of their property tax to the fire department by their choosing

 
just to let you know, this guy doesn't pay town taxes for such services. He doesn't pay the same tax we have in new england for fire services because his county doesn't have a fire dept. So instead the neighboring town offers their service for a fee. There is no extra fee. It's as if they can pay an optional $75 annual tax and have fire service, or not. It's not extra though.
 
we had something similar happen in pittsburgh last winter, with the billing issue.
the water company got a new software system and sent out bills with extra zeros on them, like $14,000 was the highest. people were calling to complain but the company didn't realize the system had malfunctioned and shut off peoples water in the middle of winter.
i realize a fire and no water are completely different things but shit like that does happen and you never know if/when you may get screwed.
 
Their taxes didn't go to that township. That's the point. They were outside of that township so they had the option to pay $75 to be covered by that fire department. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.
 
I never said the fire department wasn't government funded. I don't know where you got that from.

Also, clearly they did vote for the "jackass that did come up with this so called 'extra fee'" otherwise he wouldn't be in office. Or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that their elections were rigged just so that somebody could charge the citizens an extra $75?
 
Firefighters are there to protect the community. They are there because the community funds and supports the Firehouse so it can protect the community. If you are not in the community and do not support the firehouse when given an option to then go fuck yourself. If everyone in the community knew that even if they didn't pay their house would still be saved nobody would pay and everybody's house would burn the fuck down.
 
it's hard to grasp because (essentially) privatized fire safety service is moronic. you (not you, the rhetorical you) can talk about libertarian values all you want but even my most libertarian friends dont want to do away with governmental fire departments.. would you support a town that basically privatized police force? would you support a cop who watched a person get mugged because he looked it up and the victim hadnt paid the
 
it's not privatized though. they just don't live within the fire depts jurisdiction/range.

or are you just going off onto a different topic? Because no way in hell would i support private police/fire
 
And now you're starting to upset me with this stream of moronic babble coming out of your mouth. Are you really fucking comparing the two? If there were a fucking person inside the house do you really think they would have let them burn alive? No one was in danger.

Please stop posting.
 
It doesn't matter if the family didn't vote for him. If they didn't pay the fee, they don't get the service. It's as simple as that.
 
that's great bro, condescending non-arguments will really get you places

im pretty sure i explicitly said im not saying fire control= police in every aspect, but it is something that most people in our society can agree should be a normal, governmental thing, and they both have EVERYTHING TO DO with safety. if a person burning in the house was the threshold at which they would give in and put out the fire, most of your arguments have been put out the window because youre conceding that there's a point at which they need to recognize that something far more valuable is at stake and they should stop worrying about the
 
no i know, that's why i said in parentheses "essentially." for our intents and purposes here it's being treated as a private service, and if you dont pay the fee, youre fucked. and i'm saying that i thought most people could agree that fire control, like police control, should not be something that operates that way.

ill reiterate for those so mad at me for expressing my opinion on this. i know and concede that logically, through the letters of the law, sure it makes sense what they did, and the family is retarded for not paying the fee. but im saying youre a sorry person if you can sit and watch an entire family's life go down the drain because of a 75 dollar fee, and a stupid rule.
 
"clearly they did vote for the "jackass that did come up with this so called 'extra fee'" otherwise he wouldn't be in office"
 
ok, that explains it a bit more. keep going with it, its not directly related but still interesting.

and something tells me it wasn't exactly the easiest task for the firefighters to sit there and not do their job, but i'm sure it somehow came down to either listening to their supervisors and doing nothing, or acting and losing their jobs. And if 1 acts, they all had to because 1 man isnt going to put out a house fire.
 
.....what? That made absolutely no sense. And non-arguments? I'm not the one basing my argument off of opinion; you are. You are providing no factual evidence for anything. Also, we are not debating the morality of the issue.

This is what happened:

A family lived outside the district of a certain township. That township offered people in the neighboring areas a MORE than reasonable fee for the use of THEIR fire department. This man declined their service and then when his house did go up in flames, he expected them to put it out. No one was in harms way. There was no risk of it spreading to other properties. That is what happened.

1. The fire department was not privatized.

2. They did not live in the township of the fire department, therefore their taxes did not go to it. They could have paid a minimal cost for the protection, but declined. This means they had absolutely NO claim to the fire departments services. There is absolutely not factual argument that you can make that says otherwise. Your argument is based solely on what your opinion and no evidence.

3. "Im pretty sure i explicitly said im not saying fire control= police in every aspect."

No you didn't.

4. Where do you get off comparing someone getting mugged and having a cop just stand by and watch to this scenario? No one was in danger.

5. "Most of your arguments have been put out the window because youre conceding that there's a point at which they need to recognize that something far more valuable is at stake and they should stop worrying about the"

Wat. That made no sense (and I know it cut your post off). This is completely irrelevant to the situation that we're talking about. Of course if there was someone in danger they would have stepped in. That doesn't have any bearing on what I am saying, because THERE WASN'T ANYONE IN HARMS WAY.

Do I think that the situation is sad and unfortunate? Fuck yeah I do. The guy's goddamn home was burned down. Who's fault was it? HIS own fault for not coughing up a measly $75. Don't try to put the blame on the fire department when he could have avoided all of this. He had the option of gaining their protection but said, 'NO, I don't want it' when he refused to pay for it.
 
1286320030I_see_what_you_did_there.jpg
 
i applaud your points, and I think out of everyone thats responded, I agree with you the most.

yet somehow despite the fact that we've both been on ns for almost the exact same length of time, i don't believe i had ever seen any post of yours. 10/10 good sir.
 
Haha holy shit, 8 days apart. But yeah, I've just recently started posting in NSG again. I was active in M&A and some cults. I'm pretty sure I've seen you around before though. Cheers mate!
 
yeah like i said, by the letter of the law you guys are obviously right. black bandana, my argument is exactly that, moral and subjective. i said that at least once before. so let's just agree to disagree because we have different opinions on the matter at a very fundamental level. i believe that the family was in enough danger that a 75 dollar issue should be set aside. you disagree, and that's perfectly fine
 
youre retarted they obviously arent in some urban area they r in the conutry where its volunteer fire fighters and there small town doesnthave alot of water every year im sure they are told to pay their fire fees and if they dont they r fucked

someone has gotta pay for itand in small towns u gotta show whats up
 
You think this is fair punishment? Have their house burn to the ground and let them lose soo many possessions? Put yourself in their shoes you self righteous fuck.

The fireman should have done their job regardless if they paid the fire fee or not, simply letting their house burn to the ground is pathetic.
 
Its just like insurance... if you don't have it your screwed.. It's not the governments fault that you were negligent and not their responsibility to save you, when there are other people actually paying their tax'es/dues whatever
 
You have got to be kidding me. Why would he need change his perspective from unbiased third party to biased first person in order to make a rational decision about this issue?

 
This is crazy fucked up. It's just, unmoral. How can you do that to someone? Save the house and fine them later, better than becoming a tyrant and begining a rein of terror
 
Please explain how requiring people to pay for a service is "becoming a tyrant and begining a rein of terror". I'm not even going to comment on your spelling... Oh wait, I just did. It's awful.
 
This is false. He payed the city taxes, this is an additional fee you must register for. He says he didn't refuse to pay the fee, it was something that slipped through the cracks.

Merely because a fee is imposed on a service does not mean that you do not have a right to that service. The city should never put firefighter services outside the 'normal' taxes in the first place.

If the budget is really that strapped for $, impose a fine you have to pay if you don't buy the city fire protection subscription, but the firefighters will still respond to calls.

If you don't buy the fact that people have a right to adequate housing, (first get your moral compass reexamined), but then consider the loss the city takes on this guy's property tax. Surely the city would like to ensure that peoples' property values are kept up to maintain a high property tax income. Providing the firefighters' services accomplishes this.

 
there's nothing wrong with my spelling, feel free to waste your time checking it in word. So are you saying that if you were on the fire department and you knew someones house was burning down you'd say "aww fuck them they forgot to pay". If i was in charge i'd rather save the house and then slap a several thousand dollar fine on them. Sends the same sort of message without the cruelty.
 
i litterally just learned about this in firefighter 1 class today.

back in the day, there were firemarks, which were like little plaques on a house that said you paid for "fire insurance". if you paid, then that means that you paid the insurance company which supporter the firehouse for all their gear. if you didnt pay, often they would save your house, but they really didnt have to.

see, your tax money, or this $75 fee, goes to pay for the fire house stuff. therefore, you own part of the firehouse, and they have to pay you back by being your insurance plan. if you dont pay, tough shit. fireman arent there to give handouts.
 
Yes, you're right. Now that I check again, your spelling was impeccable.

Also, they didn't forget to pay. They chose not to and thought they could get the service for free. Guess what? That's not how insurance works.

Finally, how could the fire department know they have the capability of paying such a high fine or even would actually even pay in the first place. If everybody could just wait until their house caught on fire to decide to pay, the fire department wouldn't have any money to purchase equipment with to stop the first fire. Then they wouldn't get any money from fines, and they would never get started. Then anybody's house that caught on fire would burn down, and we'd actually end up with a worse system than is in place right now.
 
Blah, as much as i want to continue to argue i see what you're saying. I guess what i'm getting at is that the situation doesn't sit well with me. Just another example of what our country has come to. It's cold, people think they can do what they want and get away with it and the fire department comes out as the bad guys because, well, what they did was rather heartless no matter what the book says.
 
the fire department wasnt in his "city" people in his area had signed a contract with another city to provide fire protection services. the fire fighters were contracted to do a job, the man did not pay for said job to take place, the job didnt take place.

you also have no right to have your neighbors provide fire protection services for your home. because thats what would have been happening if he didnt pay the fee, the fire was put out, and everyone else paid their fees.

not to mention if fires are going to be put out when someone doesnt follow through with their end of the contract (this was a contract) then why would anyone else pay the fee? the fire department is going to provide the service if i pay for it or not right? so im not going to pay for it. when no one pays for it what happens when the fire department gets shut down due to lack of funding and 5 homes catch fire?

people have no right to someone else putting out fires on their property. operative words "someone else" true rights impose no positive action from your fellow man to your benefit. (but that entails a lengthy discussion on the rights of man)

although i will say, can you honestly say youve put your money where your mouth is on the subject of having a "right" to adequate housing? if i have a right to "adequate" (a far to ambiguous term) housing then ill be expecting your door to be open and a couch ready for me should i drop by. wouldnt want me to go without one of my basic rights would you ;)

might have sounded like an asshole, but dont take it that way :)

 
yes, what he said.

they pay taxes, but not for a fire service. and so they're asked to pay this fee for the fire service.

and i don't believe for one second that something about his payment "fell through the cracks" or something. He basically reproved his stupidity to me when he said something along the lines of how he assumed that they'd still come and put it out, even if he hadn't paid. You can't NOT pay for a service, but then assume you'll still get it as soon as you need it.

in the end, the man made the legal decision to NOT pay $75 for another year of fire protection.

I believe that if you don't pay for it, you accept the risks. This made was irresponsibly stupid, and now he's paid the price for it. He decided that everything in his house, and the house itself was worth less than $75 to him.
 
What we have here is a failure in community and society. The community failed to govern effectively and pass a measure to prevent raging fires, and a guy's home burned down. Community failed hard by the fact that regardless of their job position, these guys didn't stop and help a fellow human being. If you saw a rape in progess, would you hit the attacker? You'd at least call out for help, right? These guys effectively walked away and told nobody. In days before fire departments or in villiages where there is none, what should we expect of our friends and community should our posessions burn? I'd like to think the community would be there, but i dunno... if the society you live in sucks, it may not be there.
 
My guess would be that anyone who actively choose not to help their fellow friends and community would be left to their own fate.

There's a human bucket chain in an effort to stop a fire, one individual says "meh, I'm not gonna help out, but I'm sure you guys'll be there when my house catches", fuck that guy.

 
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/circle/modules/module13.htm

it is not a far to(sic)ambiguous term, it is part of the standard terminology used in social justice issues.

State obligations vis-à-vis the right to adequate housing are frequently misunderstood. They do not mean that the state is required to build housing for the entire population, or that hous­ing should be provided free of charge to the populace, or even that this right will mani­fest itself in the same manner in all places at all times. Rather, recognition of the right to housing by a state means:

* The state undertakes to endeavor by all appropriate means to ensure that everyone has ac­cess to affordable and acceptable housing.

* The state will undertake a series of measures which indicate policy and legislative recog­nition of each of the constituent aspects of the right to housing.

* The state will protect and improve houses and neighborhoods rather than damage or destroy them.

The last point is particularly applicable here.

Oh, and as you should figure, if you do read up about what adequate housing is... me providing you a couch is not an example of adequate housing. If all you're looking for is a place to sleep, i could point you in the direction of several homeless shelters, but for some reason i doubt you'd be satisfied by that.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top