3 ms·

Since all comments were about the same, I'm just gonna answer yours: To be fair, compared to you guys I'm a total European Douchebag Socialist. I get that. So m

by Udo 16y ago

Since all comments were about the same, I'm just gonna answer yours: To be fair, compared to you guys I'm a total European Douchebag Socialist. I get that. So my childish instinct says, the moral thing in this case would be to just bill the family a few thousand $. But I guess that approach lacks the appropriate toughness. It's probably a cultural thing.

protomyth 16y ago
No, I don't think you are wrong on the just bill the family. If there were some framework in the law to do it, I would be all for that, but there really isn't. Plus, you have the additional problem of liability for both injury and damage. It isn't a matter of toughness. I grew up in North Dakota and you help your neighbor. The problem is your neighbor didn't help you to begin with and there is no way that the "Good Samaritan" approach won't land you in more trouble. I really think a lot of the reporting on the incident is not focused on why the family did not pitch in with their neighbors and pay the fee to insure service. Was it just selfishness or was their a financial reason?
- Udo 16y ago
  The legal framework in this case would be a conversation along the lines: FF: "Hello there, seems your house is a bit on fire sir." HO: "Indeed, it would appear so. Would you be a good sport and point your enormous hose into my burning pile of rubble for a while, my dear lad?" FF: "Of course, no problem. I do, however, see that you didn't pay into our 'unfortunate happenstance insurance', which means you'll have to pay our regular fees. That'll be a fantastilllion dollars and the blood of your firstborn please." HO: "Here you go." I grew up in Germany, which is without a doubt the most unhelpful and mean-spirited country in the whole world, and even they would not hesitate to help someone in need. The whole point of the "Good Samaritan" thing is that you don't do it for something in exchange, by the way. But in this case that doesn't even apply. The fire department would of course get something in exchange if they billed for their time and materials. It should not matter how "evil" the family with the burning house is. It's simply morally wrong to not help them. This whole procedure highlights how deeply immoral some parts of society still are, especially in cases like this where it is apparently still seen as acceptable behavior. By the way, not even in the dark ages, when there was no such thing as a professional fire brigade, ordinary people performed those duties without question for any member of the community. And those were the days when women were cattle and the church owned everything, mind you. But even they knew how absurd it was to only help some people in emergencies while leaving others with a self-righteous lie such as "there is nothing I can do, you deserve this".

by Udo 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

No, I don't think you are wrong on the just bill the family. If there were some framework in the law to do it, I would be all for that, but there really isn't. Plus, you have the additional problem of liability for both injury and damage. It isn't a matter of toughness. I grew up in North Dakota and you help your neighbor. The problem is your neighbor didn't help you to begin with and there is no way that the "Good Samaritan" approach won't land you in more trouble. I really think a lot of the reporting on the incident is not focused on why the family did not pitch in with their neighbors and pay the fee to insure service. Was it just selfishness or was their a financial reason?

Udo 16y ago
The legal framework in this case would be a conversation along the lines: FF: "Hello there, seems your house is a bit on fire sir." HO: "Indeed, it would appear so. Would you be a good sport and point your enormous hose into my burning pile of rubble for a while, my dear lad?" FF: "Of course, no problem. I do, however, see that you didn't pay into our 'unfortunate happenstance insurance', which means you'll have to pay our regular fees. That'll be a fantastilllion dollars and the blood of your firstborn please." HO: "Here you go." I grew up in Germany, which is without a doubt the most unhelpful and mean-spirited country in the whole world, and even they would not hesitate to help someone in need. The whole point of the "Good Samaritan" thing is that you don't do it for something in exchange, by the way. But in this case that doesn't even apply. The fire department would of course get something in exchange if they billed for their time and materials. It should not matter how "evil" the family with the burning house is. It's simply morally wrong to not help them. This whole procedure highlights how deeply immoral some parts of society still are, especially in cases like this where it is apparently still seen as acceptable behavior. By the way, not even in the dark ages, when there was no such thing as a professional fire brigade, ordinary people performed those duties without question for any member of the community. And those were the days when women were cattle and the church owned everything, mind you. But even they knew how absurd it was to only help some people in emergencies while leaving others with a self-righteous lie such as "there is nothing I can do, you deserve this".