I suppose it would be better if they provided free service to everyone within 50 miles of the town and just laid off some firefighters or reduced their pay and benefits to pay for it.
Of course not. But that does not change the fact that they were on site watching the house go down in flames.It is not like someone called from X miles away and saidto get over here and put out the fire. Once they were on site (from what I understand to monitor the neighbors property) they should of been firemen and not spectators.
I don’t how to explain it anymore clearer than this to those that insist on thinking emotional inside of logically:
20 years ago the town’s fire department said they would take care of fires on properties OUTSIDE THE TOWN if the owner paid a service fee.
People that chose to pay the fee receive service.
People that chose not to pay the fee do not receive service.
If they would have put out that fire everyone outside the town would have assumed they didn’t have to pay the service fee and would still receive coverage. That would have lead to even more cases of this.
After this I’m pretty sure almost everyone is going to do the smart thing and pay the service fee.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
I suppose it would be better if they provided free service to everyone within 50 miles of the town and just laid off some firefighters or reduced their pay and benefits to pay for it.
Of course not. But that does not change the fact that they were on site watching the house go down in flames.It is not like someone called from X miles away and saidto get over here and put out the fire. Once they were on site (from what I understand to monitor the neighbors property) they should of been firemen and not spectators.
I don’t how to explain it anymore clearer than this to those that insist on thinking emotional inside of logically:
20 years ago the town’s fire department said they would take care of fires on properties OUTSIDE THE TOWN if the owner paid a service fee.
People that chose to pay the fee receive service.
People that chose not to pay the fee do not receive service.
If they would have put out that fire everyone outside the town would have assumed they didn’t have to pay the service fee and would still receive coverage. That would have lead to even more cases of this.
After this I’m pretty sure almost everyone is going to do the smart thing and pay the service fee.
Shooter. My point is that the logical thing to do would be to put out the fire that you are watching and then deal with it later on. How is it logical to literally watch a house go up in flames to prove a point?
This is what I do not understand. Is it logical for a Doc to refuse service to a guy who is bleeding to death right in front of him because the guy does not have insurance? I know this is not exactly the same scenario but it is not too far off.
How about the animals? Is it logical for the animals to burn to death to prove a point?
I get the policy and rule but sometimes common sense and humanity has to take over.
0
Shooter. My point is that the logical thing to do would be to put out the fire that you are watching and then deal with it later on. How is it logical to literally watch a house go up in flames to prove a point?
This is what I do not understand. Is it logical for a Doc to refuse service to a guy who is bleeding to death right in front of him because the guy does not have insurance? I know this is not exactly the same scenario but it is not too far off.
How about the animals? Is it logical for the animals to burn to death to prove a point?
I get the policy and rule but sometimes common sense and humanity has to take over.
Shooter. My point is that the logical thing to do would be to put out the fire that you are watching and then deal with it later on. How is it logical to literally watch a house go up in flames to prove a point?
This is what I do not understand. Is it logical for a Doc to refuse service to a guy who is bleeding to death right in front of him because the guy does not have insurance? I know this is not exactly the same scenario but it is not too far off.
How about the animals? Is it logical for the animals to burn to death to prove a point?
I get the policy and rule but sometimes common sense and humanity has to take over.
see post 75
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
Shooter. My point is that the logical thing to do would be to put out the fire that you are watching and then deal with it later on. How is it logical to literally watch a house go up in flames to prove a point?
This is what I do not understand. Is it logical for a Doc to refuse service to a guy who is bleeding to death right in front of him because the guy does not have insurance? I know this is not exactly the same scenario but it is not too far off.
How about the animals? Is it logical for the animals to burn to death to prove a point?
I get the policy and rule but sometimes common sense and humanity has to take over.
Shooter. My point is that the logical thing to do would be to put out the fire that you are watching and then deal with it later on. How is it logical to literally watch a house go up in flames to prove a point?
This is what I do not understand. Is it logical for a Doc to refuse service to a guy who is bleeding to death right in front of him because the guy does not have insurance? I know this is not exactly the same scenario but it is not too far off.
How about the animals? Is it logical for the animals to burn to death to prove a point?
I get the policy and rule but sometimes common sense and humanity has to take over.
For the first part I will refer you to post #78.
With regard to the rest of your post: one involves a house burning. The other involves a human being dying. Its not even comparable.
It sucks the animals died, but I blame the owners. If you are going to burn trash next to your house it might be a good idea to pay the $70 firefighter service fee or at least not have you pets locked inside your house when you decided to start a fire next to it.
Also one of two things most likely happened with regard to the pets. Either the fire spread so fast it wouldn’t have mattered what the fire department did OR the owners didn’t care enough of their pets to try and save them.
Either way, the pets dying is on the owners.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
Shooter. My point is that the logical thing to do would be to put out the fire that you are watching and then deal with it later on. How is it logical to literally watch a house go up in flames to prove a point?
This is what I do not understand. Is it logical for a Doc to refuse service to a guy who is bleeding to death right in front of him because the guy does not have insurance? I know this is not exactly the same scenario but it is not too far off.
How about the animals? Is it logical for the animals to burn to death to prove a point?
I get the policy and rule but sometimes common sense and humanity has to take over.
For the first part I will refer you to post #78.
With regard to the rest of your post: one involves a house burning. The other involves a human being dying. Its not even comparable.
It sucks the animals died, but I blame the owners. If you are going to burn trash next to your house it might be a good idea to pay the $70 firefighter service fee or at least not have you pets locked inside your house when you decided to start a fire next to it.
Also one of two things most likely happened with regard to the pets. Either the fire spread so fast it wouldn’t have mattered what the fire department did OR the owners didn’t care enough of their pets to try and save them.
Do not make my statement something it is not. Reread my original statement.
Not all firefighters. Just these in general -- and there is a difference between being a coward and doing a cowardly act.
The statement is referring to it being a chicken shit thing to do. I am sure you have heard the expression before about something being a cowardly act.
0
Do not make my statement something it is not. Reread my original statement.
Not all firefighters. Just these in general -- and there is a difference between being a coward and doing a cowardly act.
The statement is referring to it being a chicken shit thing to do. I am sure you have heard the expression before about something being a cowardly act.
With regard to the rest of
your post: one involves a house burning. The other involves a human
being dying. Its not even comparable.
It is comparable. The only reason it is not in your eyes is because someone was not in the house (although living animals were). What would of happened if someone was in the house? Where does the line from proving a point to doing the ethically right thing end?
Yes it is the owners faultthat the animals were put in a bad spotbut does that mean that everyone else should just ignore their safety and well being?After all it is not the animals fault that their owners did not pay the fee is it?How about if your neighbor owned dogs and was not feeding them or giving them water and you can visibly see that the dogs are suffering to dangerous levels -- is it too much to think that giving them some food and water or otherwise helping them is too much to ask for?
0
With regard to the rest of
your post: one involves a house burning. The other involves a human
being dying. Its not even comparable.
It is comparable. The only reason it is not in your eyes is because someone was not in the house (although living animals were). What would of happened if someone was in the house? Where does the line from proving a point to doing the ethically right thing end?
Yes it is the owners faultthat the animals were put in a bad spotbut does that mean that everyone else should just ignore their safety and well being?After all it is not the animals fault that their owners did not pay the fee is it?How about if your neighbor owned dogs and was not feeding them or giving them water and you can visibly see that the dogs are suffering to dangerous levels -- is it too much to think that giving them some food and water or otherwise helping them is too much to ask for?
I would be over a the fire chiefs house with about 50 gals of gas and a shotgun and let it burn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . Put some chicken and ribs on the roof and ask him if he like em well done
0
I would be over a the fire chiefs house with about 50 gals of gas and a shotgun and let it burn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . Put some chicken and ribs on the roof and ask him if he like em well done
Do not make my statement something it is not. Reread my original statement.
Not all firefighters. Just these in general -- and there is a difference between being a coward and doing a cowardly act.
The statement is referring to it being a chicken shit thing to do. I am sure you have heard the expression before about something being a cowardly act.
So what were the firefighters afraid of if it wasnt the fire?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
Do not make my statement something it is not. Reread my original statement.
Not all firefighters. Just these in general -- and there is a difference between being a coward and doing a cowardly act.
The statement is referring to it being a chicken shit thing to do. I am sure you have heard the expression before about something being a cowardly act.
So what were the firefighters afraid of if it wasnt the fire?
it is an expression. They did a chicken shit act. I do not how to describe the expression. I am sure you have heard it before and are know what it means.
0
it is an expression. They did a chicken shit act. I do not how to describe the expression. I am sure you have heard it before and are know what it means.
With regard to the rest of your post: one involves a house burning. The other involves a human being dying. Its not even comparable.
It is comparable. The only reason it is not in your eyes is because someone was not in the house (although living animals were). What would of happened if someone was in the house? Where does the line from proving a point to doing the ethically right thing end?
When a human life is in danger.
Yes it is the owners faultthat the animals were put in a bad spotbut does that mean that everyone else should just ignore their safety and well being?After all it is not the animals fault that their owners did not pay the fee is it?How about if your neighbor owned dogs and was not feeding them or giving them water and you can visibly see that the dogs are suffering to dangerous levels -- is it too much to think that giving them some food and water or otherwise helping them is too much to ask for?
If my neighbor isnt giving his dogs food or water I supposed to feed and water them myself? That explains so much about your previous posts.
And like I said before: with regard to the pets: Either the fire spread so fast it wouldn’t have mattered what the fire department did OR the owners didn’t care enough of their pets to try and save them.
Either way, the pets dying is on the owners.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
With regard to the rest of your post: one involves a house burning. The other involves a human being dying. Its not even comparable.
It is comparable. The only reason it is not in your eyes is because someone was not in the house (although living animals were). What would of happened if someone was in the house? Where does the line from proving a point to doing the ethically right thing end?
When a human life is in danger.
Yes it is the owners faultthat the animals were put in a bad spotbut does that mean that everyone else should just ignore their safety and well being?After all it is not the animals fault that their owners did not pay the fee is it?How about if your neighbor owned dogs and was not feeding them or giving them water and you can visibly see that the dogs are suffering to dangerous levels -- is it too much to think that giving them some food and water or otherwise helping them is too much to ask for?
If my neighbor isnt giving his dogs food or water I supposed to feed and water them myself? That explains so much about your previous posts.
And like I said before: with regard to the pets: Either the fire spread so fast it wouldn’t have mattered what the fire department did OR the owners didn’t care enough of their pets to try and save them.
it is an expression. They did a chicken shit act. I do not how to describe the expression. I am sure you have heard it before and are know what it means.
I know what it means. Once again I ask, how are those firefighters cowards?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
it is an expression. They did a chicken shit act. I do not how to describe the expression. I am sure you have heard it before and are know what it means.
I know what it means. Once again I ask, how are those firefighters cowards?
If my neighbor isnt giving his dogs food or water I supposed to feed and water them myself?
Of course you are not SUPPOSED to feed them. Think outside of black and white for a minute here. All I am saying is what is so wrong with lending a hand to help out an innocent being?
The act was cowardly because they could of done a lot to help a bad situation (and possibly the lives of some animals). Instead they choose to hide behind a policy and decided to prove a point (I am sure some job related concerns played a factor as well which I can understand to a point).
Forgive me for not discussing this anymore. I have already wasted too much time on here and I have to get some work done. And we are obviously not getting anywhere.
0
If my neighbor isnt giving his dogs food or water I supposed to feed and water them myself?
Of course you are not SUPPOSED to feed them. Think outside of black and white for a minute here. All I am saying is what is so wrong with lending a hand to help out an innocent being?
The act was cowardly because they could of done a lot to help a bad situation (and possibly the lives of some animals). Instead they choose to hide behind a policy and decided to prove a point (I am sure some job related concerns played a factor as well which I can understand to a point).
Forgive me for not discussing this anymore. I have already wasted too much time on here and I have to get some work done. And we are obviously not getting anywhere.
matt / SS - this is an unwinnable debate for either
if the guy got service for free, then no one would pay the fire fee and townspeople would stop paying their property taxes funding the fire dept
if the fire dept did what they did, then they catch hell for following orders (sort of like good german soldiers from 70 years ago)
humanity has to take over at some point, but there are consequences to that act of humanity like no one paying the service fee and people stopping payment of fire dept property taxes
0
matt / SS - this is an unwinnable debate for either
if the guy got service for free, then no one would pay the fire fee and townspeople would stop paying their property taxes funding the fire dept
if the fire dept did what they did, then they catch hell for following orders (sort of like good german soldiers from 70 years ago)
humanity has to take over at some point, but there are consequences to that act of humanity like no one paying the service fee and people stopping payment of fire dept property taxes
matt / SS - this is an unwinnable debate for either
if the guy got service for free, then no one would pay the fire fee and townspeople would stop paying their property taxes funding the fire dept
if the fire dept did what they did, then they catch hell for following orders (sort of like good german soldiers from 70 years ago)
humanity has to take over at some point, but there are consequences to that act of humanity like no one paying the service fee and people stopping payment of fire dept property taxes
No it isn't. This case is an absolute freaking no-brainer...
0
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
matt / SS - this is an unwinnable debate for either
if the guy got service for free, then no one would pay the fire fee and townspeople would stop paying their property taxes funding the fire dept
if the fire dept did what they did, then they catch hell for following orders (sort of like good german soldiers from 70 years ago)
humanity has to take over at some point, but there are consequences to that act of humanity like no one paying the service fee and people stopping payment of fire dept property taxes
No it isn't. This case is an absolute freaking no-brainer...
Your point about people not paying the fee because he didn't and received help is not a proven point, but a theory. The fact of the matter is they could have really set an example by helping him when he was pleaing for them to do so and then hung him with the bill for the SERVICE they actually performed. This by far would have been the appropriate action and then people would have seen how cheap the $75 is compared to having to flip for the entire SERVICE bill.
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
0
KOAJ
Your point about people not paying the fee because he didn't and received help is not a proven point, but a theory. The fact of the matter is they could have really set an example by helping him when he was pleaing for them to do so and then hung him with the bill for the SERVICE they actually performed. This by far would have been the appropriate action and then people would have seen how cheap the $75 is compared to having to flip for the entire SERVICE bill.
If my neighbor isnt giving his dogs food or water I supposed to feed and water them myself?
Of course you are not SUPPOSED to feed them. Think outside of black and white for a minute here. All I am saying is what is so wrong with lending a hand to help out an innocent being?
The act was cowardly because they could of done a lot to help a bad situation (and possibly the lives of some animals). Instead they choose to hide behind a policy and decided to prove a point (I am sure some job related concerns played a factor as well which I can understand to a point).
Forgive me for not discussing this anymore. I have already wasted too much time on here and I have to get some work done. And we are obviously not getting anywhere.
Nothing is wrong with it. But if you help out every living thing you see in need you will shortly find yourself jobless and penny-less.
If you want to bash the town’s policies fine. Have at it. But to call firefighters cowards is just deplorable.
For the third time:
With regard to the pets: most likely either the fire spread so fast it wouldn’t have mattered what the fire department did OR the owners didn’t care enough of their pets to try and save them.
Either way, the pets dying is on the owners.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
If my neighbor isnt giving his dogs food or water I supposed to feed and water them myself?
Of course you are not SUPPOSED to feed them. Think outside of black and white for a minute here. All I am saying is what is so wrong with lending a hand to help out an innocent being?
The act was cowardly because they could of done a lot to help a bad situation (and possibly the lives of some animals). Instead they choose to hide behind a policy and decided to prove a point (I am sure some job related concerns played a factor as well which I can understand to a point).
Forgive me for not discussing this anymore. I have already wasted too much time on here and I have to get some work done. And we are obviously not getting anywhere.
Nothing is wrong with it. But if you help out every living thing you see in need you will shortly find yourself jobless and penny-less.
If you want to bash the town’s policies fine. Have at it. But to call firefighters cowards is just deplorable.
For the third time:
With regard to the pets: most likely either the fire spread so fast it wouldn’t have mattered what the fire department did OR the owners didn’t care enough of their pets to try and save them.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Established in 1995,
. Put some chicken and ribs on the roof and ask him if he like em well done
Hot Forum Topics
