God bless the South Fulton Fire Department

[Asher]

So if you wait for your house to get set on fire before you agree to pay the fire department then you get out of paying for any of its fixed costs? Yeah, that's fair!

Uh. What?

I don't feel you can comprehend my argument and I lack the energy to teach intuition.

Oh, and a one-in-ten-thousand chance of a hit to your credit score is supposed to deter idiots?

Yeah man, it's all one big scam. People wait for the house to burn down just so they can laugh in the face of the fire department and **** them over when they spend all that money on water putting it out!

[Asher]

Oh no, there goes my furniture and my Xbox! I must be the most unlucky person in the world right now!!!!!

Oh sweet jesus, tell me you're joking. If not you have just become one of the dumbest people on this entire site.

Do you have any ****ing idea how expensive it is to rebuild a house WHILE paying to live somewhere else WHILE replacing everything from inside the house WHILE paying for day-to-day expenses?

To boil this down to replacing a ****ing Xbox is insulting to the intelligence of anyone unfortunate enough to read your posts.

[giblets]

Oh sweet jesus, tell me you're joking. If not you have just become one of the dumbest people on this entire site.

Do you have any ****ing idea how expensive it is to rebuild a house WHILE paying to live somewhere else WHILE replacing everything from inside the house WHILE paying for day-to-day expenses?

To boil this down to replacing a ****ing Xbox is insulting to the intelligence of anyone unfortunate enough to read your posts.

I don't see why day-to-day expenses should change. I don't see why they have to rebuild the house either, if they can't afford that they should just sell the property to someone who can afford to build a new house. Oh boo hoo, they have to pay rent.

[a.kitman]

the whole point of a goverment is to protect people from bad choices. cus everyone makes them.

[Asher]

I don't see why day-to-day expenses should change. I don't see why they have to rebuild the house either

I just want to confirm this.

You don't see why they have to rebuild a house that burned down?

Yeah, this conversation is done...

[giblets]

Uh. What?

I don't feel you can comprehend my argument and I lack the energy to teach intuition.


Yeah man, it's all one big scam. People wait for the house to burn down just so they can laugh in the face of the fire department and **** them over when they spend all that money on water putting it out!

Yeah, because it's just so intuitive to let people have their fires put out without paying for it, shrug your shoulders because water is cheap, then make responsible people pay for the full cost of the fire department.

[Asher]

I love how your assumption is everyone whose house is burning down is going to con the fire department out of money because there's no downside to it, and that there's absolutely no way for the fire department to get their payment back via asset seizure or any other avenue of debt collection.

It's clear to me that you're desperately trying to argue out of a deep hole...

[giblets]

I love how your assumption is everyone whose house is burning down is going to con the fire department out of money because there's no downside to it, and that there's absolutely no way for the fire department to get their payment back via asset seizure or any other avenue of debt collection.

It's clear to me that you're desperately trying to argue out of a deep hole...

Somehow emergency room bills manage to go unpaid. Oh but I bet the fire department has so much more power.

[KrazyHorse]

Perfect example of something the government should fund.

why?

[giblets]

I just want to confirm this.

You don't see why they have to rebuild a house that burned down?

Yeah, this conversation is done...

Is there some law saying that if you sell your smoldering ruin you'll be thrown in prison?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This would get a lot more interesting if semi-detached, terraced and apartment housing was more popular in that county.

[Boris Godunov]

OH NO, THE ANIMALS. Obviously we should abandon policy for them. My poor bleeding heart!

<<< goes vegan

Because pets and livestock are valued the same by people, right. What kind of heartless moron are you?

Wait, we've seen that answered multiple times on this site already.

[Boris Godunov]

Wow, houses have a 15% chance of burning down every year where you live?

The amount wasn't the real point of the comment, you know.

At any rate, I consider it no different than a person going to an emergency room without insurance. You can't deny them treatment, but they'll have to pay out-of-pocket for it.

And I can't imagine neighbors who've paid the fee would be happy with the FD letting houses burn down around them. Having a burnt out hulk next door isn't exactly good for property values or conducive to a pleasant neighborhood, either.

[DinoDoc]

This would get a lot more interesting if semi-detached, terraced and apartment housing was more popular in that county.

They would likely be in the city rather than in unincorporated areas of the county were that the case.

[DinoDoc]

Because pets and livestock are valued the same by people, right.

Pets despite how much sentimental value I might place on them are considered to be property and it seems evident that the policy isn't to protect the property of non-payers but only to go in if humans are trapped in burning structures.