Should idiots be saved? [Archive]

Devastatin Dave

11-02-2005, 19:40

I'm watching the news and they just had a live shot of some stupid women who had to be saved off a cliff that she was climbing. In my opinion, I believe risk taking dumbshits should not be saved when they put themselves in dangerous situations for there own thrills. "Evolustion" I suppose.~D
So am i wrong to have such a chavalier attitude for dumbasses out there seeking adrinaline highs? Inquiring minds want to know...

BDC

11-02-2005, 19:42

As anyone who has read Brave New World knows, you need the stupid to do boring menial labour.

Devastatin Dave

11-02-2005, 19:42

I rarely agree with you
Common sense always trumps politics!!!~D

Reverend Joe

11-02-2005, 19:43

Let the idiots die. It'll clear some of the muck out of the gene pool. :freak: I mean, I don't support euthanasia at all, but... well... come on- you have to draw the line somewhere!

Duke Malcolm

11-02-2005, 19:48

As anyone who has read Brave New World knows, you need the stupid to do boring menial labour.

What a coincidence -- We are studying that in my English class just now in preparation for the exams in May. And that is the only use for idiots...

Ser Clegane

11-02-2005, 19:52

Save them - but make sure to present them the bill afterwards :deal2:

Meneldil

11-02-2005, 19:55

Save them - but make sure to present them the bill afterwards :deal2:

Way to go. They'll likely not try to climb another mountain after that.

drone

11-02-2005, 20:05

Save them - but make sure to present them the bill afterwards :deal2:
Don't the French charge you for rescue for skiing accidents. I hear rescue helicopters don't come cheap ~:eek: . Isn't this the point of Carte Neige insurance?

King Henry V

11-02-2005, 20:16

Let them get them selves out of trouble if they are stupid enough to do things such as this. Or present them with a wacking great bill with a 20% surchage for having saved their lives.

Dutch_guy

11-02-2005, 20:17

Save them - but make sure to present them the bill afterwards :deal2:

Don't they always do that ?

Like Drone I was under the impression that you had to pay for your own rescue, be it skiing or some other sport were you need to be saved from death.

:balloon2:

BDC

11-02-2005, 20:26

Don't they always do that ?

Like Drone I was under the impression that you had to pay for your own rescue, be it skiing or some other sport were you need to be saved from death.

:balloon2:
I don't think you have to at sea though. Which is for the best, the lifeboat people need practice!

drone

11-02-2005, 20:29

Don't they always do that ?

Like Drone I was under the impression that you had to pay for your own rescue, be it skiing or some other sport were you need to be saved from death.
I was under the impression that the French do charge you, but I'm not sure about other countries. The Carte Neige gets you off the mountain (on or off piste). I don't know if this covers other winter sports activities though. IIRC, Carte Neige profits support either ski patrols or go to the ski team.

yesdachi

11-02-2005, 20:29

Save them - but make sure to present them the bill afterwards :deal2:
No kidding, I remember seeing a most extreme rescue show on national geographic and there were a handful of guys trapped on a mountain and they needed a helicopter to rescue them. The copter caught a bad wind and crashed right next to them. Just how much does a rescue helicopter cost?~:eek:

Dîn-Heru

11-02-2005, 20:34

Of course the person should be saved. What are the circumstances that led to the accident? It is not necessarily something about the person that has caused the bad situation. Unforseen bad weather, equipment malfunction and so on. Basically, Sh** can happen.

As for the argument that people should not seek situations that may be potentially dangerous, what should we rather do sit or lie on the couch watching tv. The result of such behavior can be seen in the western world (read: obesity..).

So, imo it is the socity's resposibilty to save people if this can be done without endangering the life of the rescuers. However, if it was incompetence of the person that led to the person needing to be rescued, then that person should be responsible to pay for the entire or large part of the rescue operation.

And if you are still not convinced that they should be saved.. I seem to remember that you have said that you are a born again Christian. What would Jesus do..? (This is in no way meant as an attack on Christianty or any other religion, or DD, it is simply an example of how one should think like about these things)
:bow:

King Henry V

11-02-2005, 20:53

Now, there is a difference between safe, healthy sports such as swimming and cycling, and downright dangerous stuff like skydiving.

Viking

11-02-2005, 20:55

Norwegian Red Cross was once sued of the mother of a BASE jumper who they didn`t manage to rescue, so he died hanging in the mountain side. :stwshame:

Devastatin Dave

11-02-2005, 21:10

What would Jesus do..? (This is in no way meant as an attack on Christianty or any other religion, or DD, it is simply an example of how one should think like about these things)
:bow:
if they were stuck in the water, He'd walk across and get them. If on a mountain, he would float up there and carry them off. If they were trapped in a cave, He cause an eathquake, opening the earth to retrieve them. But the Lord gives us freedom to do with our lives as we want even if we decide to waste it on hazardous sports. But rescuers and tax payers should not be responsible for the stupid actions of the adventurous. I'm not the best Christian, OBVIOUSLY, but there is only so much "What would Jesus do" actions that can be taken for the less intelligent and common sensless amoung us.~D

Kanamori

11-02-2005, 21:16

If I was the rescuer and the taxpayers were so worried about spending money to save a life, I would punch-out and do it anyways.

Adrian II

11-02-2005, 21:31

If I was the rescuer and the taxpayers were so worried about spending money to save a life, I would punch-out and do it anyways.Spoken like a man. :bow:

Geoffrey S

11-02-2005, 21:39

Dumb people in the world make smart people possible.

Anyway, obviously the person in question should be saved. If deemed necessary she should pay up, but deciding not to save her because you consider her stupid is incredibly callous.

yesdachi

11-02-2005, 22:06

If I was the rescuer and the taxpayers were so worried about spending money to save a life, I would punch-out and do it anyways.
Punch out who? The idiots? ~;)

Back on topic… I think in some cases at least, when you call the fire department you do get a bill.

Dîn-Heru

11-02-2005, 22:15

if they were stuck in the water, He'd walk across and get them. If on a mountain, he would float up there and carry them off. If they were trapped in a cave, He cause an eathquake, opening the earth to retrieve them. But the Lord gives us freedom to do with our lives as we want even if we decide to waste it on hazardous sports. But rescuers and tax payers should not be responsible for the stupid actions of the adventurous. I'm not the best Christian, OBVIOUSLY, but there is only so much "What would Jesus do" actions that can be taken for the less intelligent and common sensless amoung us.~D

Hehe, fair enough, but I still belive that they should be saved if possible, and then have to pay for it if it is their fault.

@ Henry V: None of the "safe" sports you mention are 100% safe, except perhaps swimming, if you had seen me ride my bike you would be surprised that I have not had more accidents. ~;)

There are risks involved in most sports, in the vast majority you only risk injuries and are in a place where you can easily be taken to a hospital for treatment. So you still risk causing the tax-payers some expences, except if you are in a country without a free healthcare. Skydiving, mountain climbing and so on are reasonably safe, I would imagine that they are less dangerous than driving a car for instance. Safety gear, and experience sees to it that something that seems dangerous becomes much less risky.

The point is that accidents can happen, and you cannot automatically say: "To hell with you, you chose to do something potentially dangerous, so you are on your own mate!", because what you belive is dangerous is not necessarily dangerous for another person.

Basically what I am trying to say with far too many words, is that if you did something people considered stupid and had an accident, should people just leave you to die for your mistake..?

Ldvs

11-02-2005, 22:28

Don't the French charge you for rescue for skiing accidents. I hear rescue helicopters don't come cheap ~:eek: . Isn't this the point of Carte Neige insurance?
We certainly do. It is out of the question we rescue suicidal idiots for free.

Mongoose

11-02-2005, 23:07

yes, they should be saved. But they should pay for it; AFAIK most of these people are fairly wealthy any way so i doubt they couldn't afford it....

Togakure

11-02-2005, 23:11

Save them - but make sure to present them the bill afterwards :deal2:

If I was the rescuer and the taxpayers were so worried about spending money to save a life, I would punch-out and do it anyways.
Well-spoken.

JimBob

11-02-2005, 23:57

Just cause you guys can't hack Denali don't take it out on me. ~;)

Mt. Hood and Mt. Rainier are usually very safe. Work out and do a day hike up and down. But should the weather turn foul quickly people get in trouble should we sit and let them?

And why are people who do these things dumbasses? Because it's dangerous? Suck it up, if we stayed away from danger none of us would be here.

Soulforged

11-03-2005, 01:57

The persons should always be saved. But from a legal point of view, if the recuers have that function then they should do it in any case, if they don't want to be charged.
But that care for the human life is the best bliss one can have. Saying let them die is really bad...~:rolleyes:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-03-2005, 01:59

Should idiots be saved?

No. I hope all Liberals go the way of the Dodo~D

bmolsson

11-03-2005, 02:26

No. I hope all Liberals go the way of the Dodo~D

You are to hard on your self. I would save you..... ~:grouphug:

Papewaio

11-03-2005, 03:30

Should soldiers be saved that are wounded on the battlefield?

Of course they should be saved. What kind of spineless society leaves their people to die. Charge them for it, make a profit. But do not be so weak a society that you cannot look after your own.

What would Judas Do?

Go get the authorities, get you rescued and expect a reward for his effort.

Which is a lot better then some around here. And if Judas is a more moral person then yourself, I suggest you really take stock of your life.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-03-2005, 04:30

Spoken like a man. :bow:

Agreed. It's simply the decent thing to do.

Red Harvest

11-03-2005, 05:03

In the past, the various national agencies that get called in for rescues have resisted the idea of charging for the rescue. The reasoning is that people won't call when they really need help. I haven't made up my mind on that.

Ok, you say, "Big deal. They don't call, not my problem." What's going to happen...a long search for the bodies, not knowing where the heck they are. It's not like you've really saved anything.

So what happens when it is Capt. Clueless sailing into a storm when he should have known better. Now you might not feel sorry for him...but what about his wife and kids or others who happen to be on board?

This isn't a yay or nay post, just thinking through some consequences here. I personally would like to see a "means test" for sending a bill for rescue. Not saying let anyone off light...but also try to prevent the bill from becoming a reason NOT to contact authorities when someone needs help.

Strike For The South

11-03-2005, 05:40

Its days like this I am scared of the conservative movement. I honestly hope to god one day DD you or someone you love is cuaght in a position like this and then see how you feel. I never thought I would see the day when a human life has direct correlation with luck. Charging for rescuses what kind of bullshit is thas. Cutting this out of Taxes might give you pennies back but why stop there I say we cut everything the goverment uses to help people wouldnt that be swell~:grouphug:

Spetulhu

11-03-2005, 05:58

Cutting this out of Taxes might give you pennies back but why stop there I say we cut everything the goverment uses to help people wouldnt that be swell~:grouphug:

Sounds good. Only idiots would live in tornado country, so to hell with them! ~:rolleyes:

Mongoose

11-03-2005, 06:01

Your missing the point. Most of these people are fairly wealthy, why should we pay for their hobbies?

i agree that they should be saved first, then billed. We do want to avoid this:

Nut case:i need help! I'm in the middle of a strom!!
Coast guard:Can you afford it?
Nut case:How much is it?
Coast guard:How much were you playing on spending?

~:joker:

bmolsson

11-03-2005, 10:36

Should soldiers be saved that are wounded on the battlefield?

Actually you should not kill your enemy. You should only wound him and you bind up two additional soldiers to help him. It's a well known fact that wounded enemy soldiers are better than dead ones. More resources are bound up and the cost for the enemy increase...... ~;)

Yawning Angel

11-03-2005, 11:05

I'm very disappointed by some of the attitudes in this thread ~:confused:

I have done my share of "dangerous" sports (at this point all sorts of more people killed doing x 'safe' activity than y 'dangerous' sport could be recycled, but since you can prove anything with statistics . . . ) and I am also aware that many people are prepared to do some things I wouldn't consider trying. Should people who do these activities be rescued if they get into difficulty? Of course they should. Should they be charged for this? Not so clear cut - not everyone who partakes of these activities is as wealthy as some might think.

Having said that there are precautions you can take to safeguard yourself and make the job of any rescuers (if required) easier. When I've been scuba diving as part of a club, we take two boats, not everyone dives at the same time, the boats have flares, radios, GPS etc. And most importantly you tell the coastguard where you are going and what time you expect to be back AND then you tell them when you are back safely.

Have I ever needed to be rescued? - yes when the engines of both our boats failed: we called the coastguard who already knew where we were and the Lifeboat came and towed us in. Did we get charged? - no this is a free emergency service in the UK, but we all regularly contribute to the life boat charity (before and after this incident) and we bought the crew a bottle of scotch as a thank you ~:cheers:

So a definate yes this idiot should always be saved

Geoffrey S

11-03-2005, 17:13

Should people living in an area known for its hurricanes or earthquakes be saved? They knew the risks when they moved there.

AntiochusIII

11-04-2005, 02:12

Should people living in an area known for its hurricanes or earthquakes be saved? They knew the risks when they moved there.Yes.

If we consider that logic as a reasonable excuse for not saving someone, and if we consider the Tsunami possibility also as such a risk, we might as well not sending any aid to all those countries which suffered from it. After all, the Sri Lankans, Indonesians, Thais, etc, live there, right? They "knew" the risk!

And I guess none of Japan's citizens on their eastern shore should ever be saved because of the same logic.

The only difference is scale.

Besides, no place in the world is truly utterly safe. The logic is flawed from the start.

And life>money all the way, unless you are a...never mind; I don't think I need to create troubles...

Papewaio's Judas comparison is incredibly effective. :bow: Though some might argue that the authorities could refuse to save the person in need of help, and Judas would not (would he?) do anything else.

Kaiser of Arabia

11-04-2005, 02:29

No. Idiots should be used to solve world hunger.

AntiochusIII

11-04-2005, 02:30

No. Idiots should be used to solve world hunger.You mean cannibalism? ~:eek:

Kaiser of Arabia

11-04-2005, 02:41

You mean cannibalism? ~:eek:
Only the poor will have to eat them, who cares about the poor?

*gets shot by Che Guevera's Ghost*

AntiochusIII

11-04-2005, 03:09

Only the poor will have to eat them, who cares about the poor?Me? *and the Ghost of Mother Theresa*

*gets shot by Che Guevera's Ghost*That must be my quote...

To tell you the truth, I was looking for a much cooler quote from Che saying something along the lines of "Fidel is not a communist, otherwise he'd have more guns..." But I couldn't find it.

About the topic, I stand by my statement, and would like to add that without idiots, smart people will no longer be smart; the knight is a serf if there is no one under him to be his serf.

Also, I'd like to stress that there *is* a limit to where fiscal conservatism can go. Saving lives is one of the limits; after all, aren't conservatives supposedly are "pro-life?"

Kaiser of Arabia

11-04-2005, 03:11

Me? *and the Ghost of Mother Theresa*

Bah, communists.

That must be my quote...

To tell you the truth, I was looking for a much cooler quote from Che saying something along the lines of "Fidel is not a communist, otherwise he'd have more guns..." But I couldn't find it.

About the topic, I stand by my statement, and would like to add that without idiots, smart people will no longer be smart; the knight is a serf if there is no one under him to be his serf.

Also, I'd like to stress that there *is* a limit to where fiscal conservatism can go. Saving lives is one of the limits; after all, aren't conservatives supposedly are "pro-life?"
If people are too stupid to be able to live on their own as adults, beh, let's just use them to build a bridge...a meat bridge.

AntiochusIII

11-04-2005, 03:18

Bah, communists.Mother Theresa, you mean? ~:confused: ~:handball:

If people are too stupid to be able to live on their own as adults, beh, let's just use them to build a bridge...a meat bridge.Erm...I think you are in a wrong thread. You see, this thread is not about social welfare (I presume you're talking about this), but is about actually rescuing the people who happens to be in a dangerous position, often by accident. But there is an assumption that many who got themselves into trouble are idiots, and the example in the first post "demonstrates," and thus, the topic: Should idiots be saved? And I answered yes.

on a completely unrelated note to Kaiser, I'm actually going to another debate tournament tomorrow-the day after tomorrow! I won LD novice the last one, by the way. It was awesome. This time my topic is about Judicial Activism--whether or not it is necessary to protect the rights of American citizens. Challenging as hell, this topic.

Kaiser of Arabia

11-04-2005, 03:52

Mother Theresa, you mean? ~:confused: ~:handball:
Erm...I think you are in a wrong thread. You see, this thread is not about social welfare (I presume you're talking about this), but is about actually rescuing the people who happens to be in a dangerous position, often by accident. But there is an assumption that many who got themselves into trouble are idiots, and the example in the first post "demonstrates," and thus, the topic: Should idiots be saved? And I answered yes.

on a completely unrelated note to Kaiser, I'm actually going to another debate tournament tomorrow-the day after tomorrow! I won LD novice the last one, by the way. It was awesome. This time my topic is about Judicial Activism--whether or not it is necessary to protect the rights of American citizens. Challenging as hell, this topic.
Awesome dude! We have the speaking tournement this december, our coach is making me do the patriot act. I'm already being known as the Patriot act kid cause so far that's been a major point in every compitition I've been in. Good luck with that, hopefully we'll do good in this comp. so we can go to the major one in Penn State, that's a two-nighter as well.

Back on topic: Meh, we shouldn't waste the resoruces if it's proven the person's an idiot. ~:cheers:

Papewaio

11-04-2005, 04:32

What is the threshold for idiot?

Speech Impediment.
Falling off a Segway.
Choking on a pretzel.

Would you save this person or are they below the idiot threshold?

Most people look like idiots at the site of an incident. You cannot make a valid judgement call as we all have accidents. Of all the times you are most likely to look stupid that is when you are in a state of shock after an accident.

So what next kill all those who have had accidents and are dazed afterwards?

Kaiser of Arabia

11-04-2005, 05:10

bmolsson

11-05-2005, 00:32