|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 09/26/2008 : 00:36:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Lugh Shiva
Public money is spent evacuating those who need help. When somebody refuses to leave, why not let them live or die on their own? Is it the job of the public to pay extra to help those who knowingly risk their lives..?
|
Dead people don't buy cufflinks... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 02:26:42 [Permalink]
|
Is it the job of the public to pay for those who knowingly risk the markets?
end of tangent
***
It is one thing to help folks in need, but compassion to the human condition and sympathy to the circumstance are clearly separate to me. I can hope folks live and learn. If they don't learn, then I hope they go out without taking out other good folks with them.
Monolithic domes are a hurricane proof construction that has been around since the 70's. If I were to live in a hurricane prone area, I wouldn't build my home any other way. I realize zoning laws make dome homes less likely for approval in many areas because the aesthetic preference of sticks and bricks. Some folks are ignorant of options to reducing risks, some have no economic choice, for others it is a style preference vs. risk.
Some places in the world, like India, have areas that flood and kill many year after year. Life is a constant risk assessment. We always weigh the options and decide with our limited capabilities and resources on how we act to sustain our life.
I don't want or expect the government to help me, rain or shine. I would however be glad for an ambulance ride if I had an accident, through negligence or circumstance. I would also be one to go and help others who were in peril or need of assistance. I would be the last to ask for financial assistance, even if it meant eating my cat or selling my possessions.
Considering historical government infliction of help, I hope we can all learn to do with less such assistance and become more self reliant and be more compassionate to the less inclined or capable. The coming years might just require a change in our attitudes to accept this as the norm.
Some knuckleheads I'd prefer to throttle, but I can hope they live and learn. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 05:09:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Lugh Shiva
Public money is spent evacuating those who need help. When somebody refuses to leave, why not let them live or die on their own? Is it the job of the public to pay extra to help those who knowingly risk their lives..?
|
Its an interesting question - how much of a safety net should the government provide? If I make a mistake, do I deserve help? People make stupid decisions all the time, I know I've made plenty, and I'd personally hate to lose everything on a moment of bad judgement. The hurricane squatters are a difficult case because they were severely warned and yet still took the risk. I could support some kind of fine to help pay for the costs of rescuing them - though that seems a little harsh considering these folks more or less just lost everything. But I could never support leaving them to die - that's not my vision of what civilization is. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 08:03:27 [Permalink]
|
There are all sorts of reasons why someone might ignore an evacuation order, everything from simple belligerence, to they've been lied to, all the way down to an organic brain disorder.
Determining the reason why someone stayed will often require more time than the person has in an emergent situation, and so a sound judgement will not be possible.
Therefore, in order to ensure that things that a person has no control over do not become death sentences, we must rescue everyone we can.
On the other hand, following the social Darwinian logic, if a person breaks his leg while enjoying a nice day of skiing on a relatively easy course, everyone should just leave him alone and if he happens to crawl all the way to a hospital on his own, and has enough cash in his pockets to pay for his care, then good for him. Otherwise, his death or permanent disfigurement is all on him, so why should we care? He knew the risks before he got on the slopes, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 08:57:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
On the other hand, following the social Darwinian logic, if a person breaks his leg while enjoying a nice day of skiing on a relatively easy course, everyone should just leave him alone and if he happens to crawl all the way to a hospital on his own, and has enough cash in his pockets to pay for his care, then good for him. Otherwise, his death or permanent disfigurement is all on him, so why should we care? He knew the risks before he got on the slopes, right?
|
Yeah.... You could use the same logic for car accidnets, I guess. We all know how dangerous it is to drive, who doesn't accept that responsibility when they leave on their morning commute? Think of the taxpayer money that gets wasted helping people who take the risk of highway driving. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2008 : 01:49:15 [Permalink]
|
I would have no great feeling of sympathy for an individual who was warned to evacuate from an oncoming disaster, but refused to do so. But people like Harry Truman (not the President, but the guy who wouldn't let Mt. Saint Helens make him move) as individuals are probably the exception. Most likely for any Darwin Award-deserving Mr. Moron who, by his own stupidity, gets killed in a hurricane, there is a Mrs. Moron or little Baby Moron who gets dragged into the mess through little or no fault of their own.
I said I didn't have great sympathy for the individual moron, but I do feel that mandatory evacuation orders should be enforced, both to protect the stupid/ignorant, and to prevent people from staying behind just to loot other people's property.
What's with that, anyway? It amazes me that people seem to generally accept that staying put for a tidal surge or a pyroclastic flow is some kind of constitutional right. Honestly, I don't think that was intended in the Bill of Rights.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2008 : 07:47:20 [Permalink]
|
After Gustav had been merciful to New Orleans, CNN did some interviews with people who'd ignored the evacuation orders. One man said that his wife had died during Katrina because they'd decided to stay in 2005, and it was pretty clear that he had tried to commit suicide by hurricane, staying for Gustav.
This guy didn't need to be fined or otherwise punished, he needs mental health services. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evacuation orders...
