Why We do not Trust each Other

Sad story, I'm not sure why it is entitled "Why We do not Trust each Other" can you explain what it has to do with people trusting others?

I don't know SW, I'm sure I had a reason for naming the story the way I did and then reported the story. Maybe I wanted you to be able to read between the lines to figure out why humans are mistrusting of each other. I guess you've bested me once again.

Yes that was dripping with sarcasm.

Mike,

I'm sorry you think everything has to be a contest, but I'm not trying to "win" as you often put it. I just thought the title was an odd choice because the story wasn't about trust at all. A more cynical person than I am might point out that the house owner "trusted" the fire department would provide service to him even though he betrayed the "trust" of the fire department by willfully not paying his, I suppose they could be taxes I wasn't clear on what authority the department had to bill $75, fees. So who caused the lack of trust in this case in your opinion?

Actually that would be you that thinks everything has to be a contest. Your constantly trying to prove you are smarter than everyone. Once again projecting your issues on other people. SSDD

Nice though, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to blame the man for his house burned down while the fire department sat there, I thought it might be you I just thought you would have waited longer.

The fire chief caused the lack of trust by not acting humanely in the situation. It's like if someone was in ER dying and no one paid attention to him because he doesn't have insurance. Thank goodness that doesn't happen here ... wait, it does? Well thank God the Republicans are trying to repeal the health care reform so it won't happen again ... wait, it was happening before the reform was ever considered?

"I suppose they could be taxes I wasn't clear on what authority the department had to bill $75, fees."

Read the story that I have linked to, it might give you a clue.

Mike lets look at some of your posts:

"Actually that would be you that thinks everything has to be a contest."

I'm sorry, I disagree, you are the one who is often going on about how people, me specifically, is trying to "win" and you did it again while trying to show I'm turning it into a contest. I won't say you lose, I will however say you failed.

" I was wondering how long it would take for someone to blame the man for his house burned down while the fire department sat there, I thought it might be you I just thought you would have waited longer."

I don't blame the man for his house burning down, unless it turns out later he set it on purpose or something. I imagine he has a good lawsuit against the fire department, probably will buy a bigger house. Second fail for Mike. I just wondered, and still do, how you are trying to tie this story into a trust issue.

"Read the story that I have linked to, it might give you a clue"

I did read the story, it says people have to pay $75 it doesn't say why or how or on who's authority, that's why I am confused. I hadn't heard of anyone having to pay "protection money" for fire service before. So you fail yet again. Three strikes and whatnot.

I disagree that the fire chief caused a lack of trust. If anything he may have increased the likelyhood that people will pay up. It just seems like a ridiculous event all around. I don't think it has anything to do with trust and I'm sorry but your explanation hasn't cleared up anything for me.

If you don't pay your car insurance, get in an accident and the insurance company won't pay to fix your car are they or you in the wrong?

Bad Parable, Mike.

Gee for someone who isn't into "wins" you spent an entire post trying to win. SSDD

Gee for someone who isn't into "wins" you spent an entire post trying to win. SSDD

You might want to try reading the article again then SW I found it with ease:

"Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge."

It's in there can you find it?

it would have been a real shame if there were people who couldent get out of the house. Guess they would have watched them burn up.

Who knows maybe they were paid in full with the ems, but then the fire department wouldn't have let them in unless one of the fire fighters was going in. It's really a tragic case.

So on a side note, I've since heard that these sorts of arrangements are common in the south. I just figured they had rural volunteer fire departments. Has anyone else heard of this practice?

They do have rural volunteer fire departments but some (don't know the number) also require a fee for fire protection.

He made a bet and he lost. If the firefighters had gone ahead and put it out, no one would pay the $75 next year and residents of the city would be subsidizing fire protection in rural areas. And remember without the additional funds the rual fire department could be shut down or scaled back placing all rural residents without fire protection.

Thanks GI, that explains my main point! If they continued to except fee's after the fire started then no one would pay. Chances are if the son-in-laws house was allowed to burn down then chances are his father-in-law would have paid the dues. It's called insurance. But if you can find a insurance company that will cover my property and I don't have to pay till something happens PLEASE post the company name.

Actually remington it doesn't explain your point at all. The fire department is acting on pick and choose. One house they put out on the condition that the man pay the fee the next day. The other house they let burn even with the man offering to pay whatever they wanted at that time.

Please explain how you think it makes your point work.

Personally, I thought this is what most conservatives were all about. These people can voluntarily pay to have fire protection. The democrats aren't shoving this socialist program down their throats!

Personally departments protecting us (police, fire department, ems) should not be dependent on whether we have paid up on certain fees. If there is a fire you put it out, simple cut and dry.

This is more a morality question than a government question. It all goes to the old psychological conundrum if you see someone dying do you help them or keep moving? Most people choose to help in whatever way they could. If you see someone's house burning down do you help put it out or do you watch it burn down because they didn't pay $75.

Damu,

"Personally, I thought this is what most conservatives were all about. These people can voluntarily pay to have fire protection. The democrats aren't shoving this socialist program down their throats!"

If you read the responses it seems that the conservatives don't have any complaints about the set up.

I'm sure they're bound to get sued. Especially, if they had insurance on the house. The insurance company will sue and the family probably will too. That is negligence in its most blatant form. They refused to respond to a fire because of nothing more than $75?! What if someone had been trapped inside? You can't put a price on a human life but it's sure worth a lot more than $75. Someone with a say in that community needs to start cracking some heads.

"If you read the responses it seems that the conservatives don't have any complaints about the set up."

Actually with exception to McCook most of the "conservatives" on this site seem to have the opinion of "too bad, should have paid the money".

As one of the more conservative posters on this blog, I disagree with Mike, as usual. The fire departments are bound by duty like the police, "To protect and serve". Tax money is already used to support a fire department. Rural fire departments are supported by property taxes on agricultural and non-city residential, commercial, and industrial properties. We don't pay dues to the police\sheriff department, or the ambulance\rescue units, why should we be expected to pay dues for fire protection.

Yes, the South Fulton Fire Department is responsible for the loss of property, thank God (yes, God) no one was injured. A lot of people, present and past could have stopped this imbecilic fee and averted this disaster.

Exactly how do you disagree with me Chunky? That's been my point from the beginning?

Since this is the first time you have posted you don't exactly fit into the above thread. Glad that you don't think that the guy deserved to watch his house burn down along side the fire department.

Please accept my humble apologies if I detract upfront from the real issue because I first must address the disturbance created by a few on the initial story of interest. In that, while bigotry is supposed to be a matter not dealt with within this venue's range of interests I feel anything I may have to offer would be arrested by those who are actually practicing just that sort of thing. I mean, why do some seem to feel they cannot address an issue without resorting to injecting into the process their ideas toward the right? Can the issue of trust not be viewed as having been breached whenever the conversation of someone losing their home becoming a "******* in the wind" sort of contest between the liberals who converted the story into an epic anti-Christian sentiment? I thought bigotry was supposed to be non-existent herein. The whole of the topic is that a family tragically and accidentally lost their home and all its content. The ethical issue following the crisis is of course just a matter of rightly adjudicating whether civil wrongdoing was a contributing factor - regardless of any political/religious/et al concerns: what does the law say and how will it be applied. Period.

Who converted this story into an anti-Christian sentiment? Two posters commented on Christianity (sort of) one represented one belief, the other the Christian belief. So calling it a contest seems to be a bit out there.

Who said anything about bigotry being non-existent. Bigotry is very existent. It doesn't play into this story so it's a little strange that you would bring it up.

There was no accident here MElang. Their house was burning down and the fire department refused to put it out because of a measly 75 bucks. That's a crime in most books, but nothing will happen here except for outcry because it involves money. The ethical issue started during the fire not after.

At the very least the fire chief should be charged with negligence.

Another fine example of Glenn Beck's "genius". He actually said that the fire department had to let the house burn down because if they had put it out then another domino would have fallen for "Obamacare". No, I'm serious.

My logic makes perfect sense eddy. As you know, or should know if your going to argue with me, God gave mankind a choice long ago. Follow Him and live in paradise, where all your needs and wants are taken care of by Him. Or, create our own path, a path where we are held accountable for each consequence we cause in our lives.

Fires happen, people die. Was it faulty wiring, from a short cut takes by an electrician? Bad connection in a natural gas line again by a short cut. A misplaced cigarette because it wasn't put in a proper place? Etc. Along the way, someone sinned, and people died for it.

CPB, What does that have to do with a fire department standing there and watching a house burn down?