That's a hard lesson to learn.

[obfuscator]

Alot of people on this forum seem to be comparing the fire department to an insurance company. The fire department is a public service provider, their conerns shouldnt be if someone has paid or not, but to put out fires. Arent these things supposed to be non-profit?

You're too familiar with Canada. But we're socialists, remember!?

[Dupin]

Alot of people on this forum seem to be comparing the fire department to an insurance company. The fire department is a public service provider, their conerns shouldnt be if someone has paid or not, but to protect the people. Arent these things supposed to be non-profit?

The first "American National Bank" was actually privately owned.

 

We ain't called the Land of Opportunity for nothing, man.

[Skeptical]

Americans developed a much stronger stigma concerning Communism during the Cold War than Canada did. And it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that Tommy Douglas is a Canadian hero. Hopefully the US will catch on to the superiority of the system at some point. Their neighbor, and half of Europe using it successfully apparently isn't enough.

 

On-topic, the big mistake is the idea that the fire department is a for-profit entity. It's not. It's role is to save lives and property. How goes the militant march towards privatization now? Freidmanites unite!

[sees_all1]

The fire department is a public service provider, their conerns shouldnt be if someone has paid or not, but to protect the people. Arent these things supposed to be non-profit?

 

This fire department up until 20 years ago could not serve anyone outside the city limits. 20 years ago if this place caught fire, the entire neighborhood would catch too, and they would be nothing anyone could do about it.

 

As it is right now, that county does not have fire protection. If they wanted it, they could have voted people in to make it happen. When people here say "the government should have done this or that," you fail to remember that the government is actually "We the people". If anything, that county should have formed a fire department a long time ago, but they didn't.

 

Fire departments in America are a local thing, and I'm glad they are. It makes sure they're more efficient, because they have to answer to the people they serve. I read a story about the recent stimulus bill that gave everyone a $250 tax rebate. Guess what - Included in "everybody" were 72,000 dead people and about 15,000 convicts. If that's not waste, I don't know what is.

[Saru Inc]

Am I the only one that just doesn't... understand... how firefighters could just go 'lol we're gonna let your house burn down'? Maybe it's because I'm British, but in our country when there's a fire we like to put it out...

 

Yes I know, blah blah blah taxes they didn't pay blah, but I bet you they would have paid afterwards if the firefighters had come and saved it...

 

I just find it disgusting that people could just sit by and watch it without stopping it. At the most basic level, you should deal with an emergency FIRST - worry about insurance and payments later.

 

What you're observing is what 50% of this country considers "Freedom." Welcome to 21st Century America, enjoy your stay.

 

I take it you'll be leaving soon? Or are you enjoying your stay as well?

[The Observer]

Morally, yes it's wrong. But where that happened there is a different system to what a lot of other developed countries have, so realistically it's up to those who live in the area to adhere to the laws and policies from which they live. Now notice how there is no firefighters point of view. I'm sure they wanted to stop the fire but were instructed not to by a higher authority.

[Alg]

On-topic, the big mistake is the idea that the fire department is a for-profit entity. It's not. It's role is to save lives and property. How goes the militant march towards privatization now? Freidmanites unite!

Privatisation is not the issue here. Yes, the fire department is a public institution, yes it's non-profit, but it's funded by taxes. And the family here did not pay said tax.

I don't agree with it, but that's the way it works.

 

If you want to get on your soapbox and preach about the evils of capitalism, go ahead. Just make sure that's the actual issue.

[Skeptical]

On-topic, the big mistake is the idea that the fire department is a for-profit entity. It's not. It's role is to save lives and property. How goes the militant march towards privatization now? Freidmanites unite!

Privatisation is not the issue here. Yes, the fire department is a public institution, yes it's non-profit, but it's funded by taxes. And the family here did not pay said tax.

I don't agree with it, but that's the way it works.

 

If you want to get on your soapbox and preach about the evils of capitalism, go ahead. Just make sure that's the actual issue.

 

To address your insinuation of arrogance: there was none intended, and I believe that you have fallen into the depraved position of providing a defense based not on responses to the argument of others, but of pointing out vague slights, imagined or otherwise.

 

And yes, my arrogance at criticizing our sacred system. Did I mention capitalism, directly or otherwise? And I assume that you missed the ironic wordplay concerning the clichéd slogan of the far left worldwide. My problem rests not with capitalism, but with the idiotic desire of the far right to slowly dissemble democratic governance and public systems and toss them to the private sector, insisting that the destruction of the public serves the public.

 

An additional point: it was not a tax. It was a tax-payer funded institution (I'm sure that these people had contributed to it's continued operation) that was charging for a public service. I wonder what happened to their budged over the past decade? I'm assuming the numbers are not available, however.

[Giordano]

 

Privatisation is not the issue here. Yes, the fire department is a public institution, yes it's non-profit, but it's funded by taxes. And the family here did not pay said tax.

I don't agree with it, but that's the way it works.

Its hard to pay something that doesn't exist: It wasn't a [bleep]ing tax, how many times are we going to say it? Fees and taxes are two completely different things.

[Skeptical]

 

Privatisation is not the issue here. Yes, the fire department is a public institution, yes it's non-profit, but it's funded by taxes. And the family here did not pay said tax.

I don't agree with it, but that's the way it works.

Its hard to pay something that doesn't exist: It wasn't a [bleep]ing tax, how many times are we going to say it? Fees and taxes are two completely different things.

 

Precisely one-third of my thoughts on the subject.

[anonymous1234]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

[Skeptical]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

 

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide".

[anonymous1234]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

 

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide".

Several people were saying how it was not a tax, and instead was a fee. This is true, but in this circumstance, the latter is essentially a replacement for the former. Without clear definitions of what something is, you can't go around debating what something isn't. I did not include morals in my final sentence, I was merely basing it off of the definitions I looked up, and that objectively, the Fire Department had no obligation to put the fire out.

 

Arguing morals here is pointless, because people will have differing opinions.

[Skeptical]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

 

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide".

Several people were saying how it was not a tax, and instead was a fee. This is true, but in this circumstance, the latter is essentially a replacement for the former. Without clear definitions of what something is, you can't go around debating what something isn't. I did not include morals in my final sentence, I was merely basing it off of the definitions I looked up, and that objectively, the Fire Department had no obligation to put the fire out.

 

Arguing morals here is pointless, because people will have differing opinions.

 

Sorry, I must have missed that, and as such mis-interpreted your post.

 

You lost me after that though: morality is an opinion.

[anonymous1234]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

[Skeptical]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

 

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you?

 

And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.

[anonymous1234]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

 

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you?

 

And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.

I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee.

[Assume Nothing]

I think the fire department shouldn't have refused them the Fire Fighter service, even though the family didn't pay the fee. I think they should have charged a on the spot fee, and rescued the place anyway. But hey, that's just my opinion.

 

"Wrong" and "Right" is morality, based on personal opinion. I could say it's right to abort children, but that's just my opinion. Not fact.

[Skeptical]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

 

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you?

 

And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.

I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee.

 

And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format.

[Assume Nothing]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

 

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you?

 

And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.

I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee.

 

And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format.

 

Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case.

 

Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful.

[Skeptical]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

 

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you?

 

And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.

I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee.

 

And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format.

 

Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case.

 

Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful.

 

I don't follow: you're drawing a parallel between law and morality. What makes human life sacred, while the destruction of animals and property can have a dollar value attached? (In this case, $75.)

[Assume Nothing]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

 

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you?

 

And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.

I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee.

 

And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format.

 

Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case.

 

Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful.

 

I don't follow: you're drawing a parallel between law and morality. What makes human life sacred, while the destruction of animals and property can have a dollar value attached? (In this case, $75.)

 

Believe it or not, morality and law is actually connected. This is the reason why different countries have different laws, because the different customs and communities would have different viewpoints of things considered 'taboo'.

 

And I didn't say the destruction of property should have a dollar value attached. And Human life is sacred because we, as humans, are always going to want to improve the planet, and preserve our own species. We are technically the most intelligent beings on this planet, so I don't quite see what your point is.

[Skeptical]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

 

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you?

 

And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.

I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee.

 

And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format.

 

Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case.

 

Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful.

 

I don't follow: you're drawing a parallel between law and morality. What makes human life sacred, while the destruction of animals and property can have a dollar value attached? (In this case, $75.)

 

Believe it or not, morality and law is actually connected. This is the reason why different countries have different laws, because the different customs and communities would have different viewpoints of things considered 'taboo'.

 

And I didn't say the destruction of property should have a dollar value attached. And Human life is sacred because we, as humans, are always going to want to improve the planet, and preserve our own species. We are technically the most intelligent beings on this planet, so I don't quite see what your point is.

 

What does us being "technically the most intelligent" have to do with morality or law? Does morality dictate law, or law morality?

[Alg]

What does us being "technically the most intelligent" have to do with morality or law? Does morality dictate law, or law morality?

Bit of both, maybe? Law starts off as being enforced morality, later becomes the standard for morals. Say, killing is thought to be morally wrong and is put into law, but later it's morally wrong because the law says so?

Watching a house burn because of some ultimately irrelevant fee is still morally wrong though, even if it is legally right. For better or worse, the justice system (And the whole of society) prefers the legal option because it's much easier to deal with.

[Saru Inc]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

 

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide".

 

 

Since when does morality come into play concerning a business transaction?