Firefighters wont help

Cosign to the max!:smt023

 

Damn, Y’al cold as a mofo. I thought I was a cold SOB but y’al easily got me beat. Have you No heart? LoL.
Anyways, with all jokes aside. Just coz you can afford to buy a house does not mean you can afford to pay insurance! There is a lot that goes in persons finance. The house is sold based on the person potential income & what have you…… What if that individual loses his/her job and the saving can only cover few months of the mortgage note? I’m all for personal responsibility and lift yourself up by boot strap staff but sometimes folks need help. Let’s not judge folks without knowing their full circumstance, they do say, Before you Judge Someone, Walk a Mile in their shoes.

Real talk- Not long ago I was helping at church handing out groceries to the unfortunate ones. One of the guy who came in for the grocery dressed real nice and had a nice German car. A church volunteer who was standing next to me was babbling “if he can afford to dress real nice and drive a German car then he should be able to buy his own grocery”. The guy apparently had a master’s degree and was gainfully employed but has lost his job 5 months ago due to this crappy economy. Since then he has been scrambling to feed & house his family (four young children and a disable wife). That day he came in with a shirt and tie to the free grocery ‘coz he just go back from another lousy job interview… so folks let’s not be too quick in judging others………

Just my .02 cents…….

 

Faulty logic, Charlie (as usual). When buying a car, you're mandated (since the 70s) to provide insurance on your car otherwise, risk being fined or worse. It's a legal issue. Insurance on a home on the other hand, holds no legal barriers. Want to stay consistent, then at least try and come up with something more intelligent.

And Ra does speak a good bit of truth. Your "devil's advocate" or "conservative talking point" really doesn't hold itself well since you're incapable of articulating yourself at all and not see a bigger picture. What sickens me to the tee is how you continue to exercise repulsive tendencies to keep a discussion going with broken, often illogical viewpoints. And when you're cornered, your silly ass resort to childish posts. They only further lessen your role as a serious person on these forums.

There's a crucial difference between debating and discussing. When debating, you're arguing a point in a structured manner, be political or civil. Discussions don't have a limit, so when you open the flood gates, don't cry afoul when people gang up on your for your asinine behavior.

 

There have been many instances where you come into a thread, read something and then ASSUME THE POSITION that we "liberals," as so you love to put it, blindly demonize one party of group with heavy malice and unreasoning. So, you bring your dopey ass on there and post a "devil's advocate" to "balance" out everything when in fact, it's highly irrelevant and disrupts the thread.

And of course, time and time again you have demonstrated that you cannot hold an intellectual conversation and quick to turn yourself into another flaminghetero, minus the "eloquent" words from that ghetto-madness.

 

Look at you getting all worked up over my comments.:smt042

I simply stated that it would of been wise for a homeowner to pay a measly 75 dollar policy and I'm suddenly deemed a "sheltered jackass". smdh

 

I'm pretty shocked by this story. I have never heard of something like this in the area i'm from, and with my ex's family having been volunteer firefighters most of their adult lives, this would be unthinkable. In my county, fire departments (except for the city fire dept) are all volunteer companies, and they raise money with fundraisers. People are not required to pay a fee in order to protect themselves in case of fire. I can't imagine any of the firefighters I know just standing by and watching someone's home burn. They would quit the dept before doing that.

 

This. I think that's what most of us were trying to get across because most of us don't live in an area were you have to pay a fee for fire protection so it's hard imagining firefighters letting a house burn down. Locally here it's either volunteers or city employed people and city employed firefighters here usually are mostly people who are about serving & helping the public/community on general principal. All goes into preventing circumstances such a illustrated in this case.

 

That's part of the problem when people attempt to rationale their viewpoint. They will latch on to any concept, no matter how repugnant, illogical or unaccepted as a philosophy or practice.

Plainly, the analogy to insurance doesn't work on several levels, as this is a fee, not insurance, and the nature of the exigent circumstances. In the case of other emergencies, when someone is injured in an accident or falls ill at home or on the streets, the dispatching of emergency services is not conditioned upon the ability to pay any fees.

We recognize as a society that's it's more important to care for the person when unforeseen and emergency situations present themselves, period. A fire represents a similar emergency, which is why most people have a similar and understandable perspective as most have shown in their posts. It only added more contempt to the matter when the firefighters showed up and did nothing, while complaining that they lacked the resources to answer all calls. Obviously, this was a malicious act of the part of the firefighters.

The fee could have been paid after the fact and all parties would have benefited. I can't imagine any other way to deal with this issue...

 

moral of the story

pay your dues






kinda like renting an apartment and not getting insurance on it, because you don't think you need it....

only to bitch about a flood or other disaster that's ruined a good portion of your items, because you can't replace em

 

I can. They could of actually of paid the measly 75 dollar fine BEFOREHAND (instead of risking having all their belongings go up in flames)

Look, I realize this is an odd and borderline cold blooded situation BUT these folks knew of the policy and that was the policy in place.

 

basically

some people dont think stuff like that can ever happen to them, so they skirt the systems in place

 

And you know that they knew of this policy how? Do you know every reg & policy applied to everything in your city? Not everyone does. Just something to think about...

 

surely something as important as that would be distributed via mail or phone, right?

after seeing the lady with 15 kids cry about not having enough government benefits, i don't doubt the stupidity of some people at all

if that's the case, that person shouldn't be allowed to be a homeowner, because obviously they're mentally incapable of simple tasks and function

 

You would think so yes. Using the good ol boys & girl who chose to live in the rual areas out here, some still don't have phones in this day and age or don't get mail service the same way the urban areas do especially with mails services being cut. So sometimes notification responsiblity on the city's part goes by the wayside. It happens. Again, just something to think about especially how things are now.

 

The fee, whether paid or unpaid is an issue that can be argued on its merits separately. True, having simply paid the fee would have alleviated that family the misery of watching their house burn, or their community could have become proactive and created their own volunteer cadre as many communities do.

I just question the logic (and I'm sure there was one) of a fire department responding to just stand by and watch. Maybe that family was the only one in that neighborhood who didn't pay or their house sat between two houses where the fee was paid, or the fire department has a save a life at any cost clause if someone was trapped inside, in which case, the FD would have (presumably) sprung into action.

But the city spent money by dispatching the FD (gas, manpower, resources) anyway, just to have them watch the burn....:smt017

I'm sure there's more to the story but what was printed left me wondering why the FD responded at all if they weren't going to anything...:smt017

 

not losing your job. listening to orders. all that is logical. not logical is not paying the fee.

 

basically

maybe illogical was the more subtle word i was looking for, instead of stupid

 

But as someone already stated, in this economy, $75 can be alot of money. And to pay it for something that you think is unlikely to happen, seems like an expense you can avoid. Unffortunately, for this family, it did happen. It may not be so much skirting the system as in trying to prioritize, hoping you wont need that coverage.

We have a similar fee with our ambulance association. You are asked to make a contribution each year. If you do, you are entitled to one or two (I forget which) free transports in case of emergency. But if you don't contribute, you are still transported,, but you will be charged and even with insurance, it might be more costly than if you had made the contribution. That seems like a policy that could be put to good use in this family's situation. Bill them after the fact.

 

chesbay, I was happy to see the Eagles win (for a change)...lol

There should have been alternatives to simply letting the house burn and we may never hear another word about what the real deal was... I just can't understand the logic of responding to do nothing but watch...

 

Nocturnalmission basically hit the nail on the head. And yes, you DO come off as such. And this is just one character trait about that I've pointed out.