Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "Kids Die In Fire - Budget Cuts To Blame" video.

@DeadlyChinchilla Ah, making a peripheral argument. Nice try. What were the other factors? Think.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla Don't you understand that there's too many uncontrollable factors in a fire? Yes, the budget cuts reduce the quality of service. But we can't just blame the service for the kids dying. What if the kids were asthmatic, inhaled CO & the cause of death was poisoning? Can we blame the response? What if a burnt beam fell & killed the kids. Can we still blame the service? What if they were rushed to the hospital & got poor treatment? Can we blame the budget? TOO MANY VARIABLES.
1
@unassumption How do you know they would've died? People run into burning buildings after their kids all the time. Do you have any data to support your premise? Or is this just another emotional appeal?
1
You're being intellectually dishonest here. You're trying to present a direct link between the response time of the firefighters & the children's deaths. You've done that without considering all the variables. Unless you're willing to do that, you're not really honoring those poor kids; you're just building an argument on a talking point. I don't like budget cuts either but damned if I'll use THIS to gain traction in an argument against them. Save your paragraphs of rhetoric & gimme some data.
1
@seattle8686 I like how you try to declare victory simply because I don't agree with you. Stupid people do that. You're losing traction. But I'll excuse that 1. Again, I need to hear the whole story before you convince me that the total negligent onus goes to the firemen. State your case.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla There's way too many variables. C'mon. Have you ever been in a fire? I have & I'm fortunate to be alive; but I'll avoid that fallacy. Hell, I once saw my father put out a fire with 2 garden hoses AND move their car out of the garage before the roof caved in. I never said you blamed the firefighters. I said you can't immediately blame policy because there's too many nuances here. America was conceived on the notion that you don't sit there & wait for the firetruck. C'mon.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla Bullshit. Any1 else on the planet is going to protect their offspring. Self-preservation gets trumped by child-preservation pretty often. You HAVEN'T explained how a couple of minutes could've saved the kids' lives because you don't know the particulars of this incident any more than I do. You're not making any valid points. Use CRITICAL THINKING.
1
@seattle8686 And you can't flat-out ignore pre-existing conditions either. If you have someone that already has compromised health issues, it may not matter when the firetruck gets there because he/she is already fucked. Have you ever studied micro & macro probabilities? These are factors you cannot disregard. And I'll ask again, where were the parents? Did they run out of the house & leave their kids behind? Why are we putting it all on the firemen? Don't they work hard enough as it is?
1
@DeadlyChinchilla No. You can't make that argument. And I didn't make the argument you're depicting. I said that there's instances where there's been fast response but people still die in addition to slow response when people live. You can't just blame budget when there are so many variables. Let's brainstorm & think of a few: alertness of the firemen? how many calls had the shift serviced? training & experience of the firemen? the burning home's safety? the kids' cause of death?
1
@Joolazoo You're right. I think we DO need to cut defense spending. I think oil subsidies are not only economically dangerous but they interfere with natural, commercial competition. Tax cuts for the rich are RIDICULOUS. I'm just saying that we can cry for these kids but are we honoring their lives by blaming the wrong culprit?
1
@Verto9999 No. Response time isn't always the number 1 factor. Response time is only the primary factor that determines when the FD gets there. But you're assuming that the FD is panacea. It's not. That's why you're wrong here.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla But why can & should we? There are too many variables to consider here. And at the end of the day, the firefighters aren't responsible for those kids. The parents are. Yes, as citizens they deserve your well put "American-grade safety standard". I can't agree more. But I also know that America was conceived on the can-do philosophy. I'm as liberal as they get. Hell, I'm a socialist for pete's sake. But I know I wouldn't depend on the fire department to save MY kids.
1
@unassumption And you're spot on about the impact of 1 variable factor. But there couild very well be a synergy of small problems & mistakes that cause a catastrophe like this 1. I tried to outline that possibility but all I'm getting is emotional responses & complaints about budget cuts. I know it sucks. But at this point, where's the money gonna come from? Worse yet, that family will probably sue the FD & win. That's even MORE budget concerns. Are you seeing my issue now?
1
I'm not gonna accept the use of budget cuts as a red herring here. Yes, brownouts are part of the problem. But what about fire safety education? Where were the parents on 1st alert? Yes, a closer truck is to the advantage. But we can't do hindsight speculation.
1
@seattle8686 So instead of considering the factors, you'll simply heap all the onus on the firefighters? That's counter-intuitive. Better yet, it's intellectually dishonest. Do you know the conditions here? What was the weather like? How was the kids' health before the fire? WHEN & HOW did they die? It's too easy to blame the budget then decide to throw money at a problem. But it's also wasteful & often ineffective. Do you understand why it takes more examination than what's being done by TYT?
1
@seattle8686 Fire killed the kids. K'kay. HOW did fire kill the kids? You're the expert. Tell me the pathology. Did fire burn a ceiling joist & cause the roof to collapse that crushed the kids? Did the kids burn to death? Was it smoke inhalation? Was the heat so intense that it scarred the kids' breathing vessels or alveoli therefore making it impossible to absorb what little oxygen was available? Fire has many dynamics. So tell me the SPECIFIC pathology? Otherwise you're just sidestepping me.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla In other words, we can't just blame budget cuts when so many factors here. What about the training of the 911 operator who routed the alert? What about the training of the firemen who were at the site? What about the house's level of safety? What about the fact that closer fire engines show up to fires & people still die? Is it intuitive to put this all on a budget cut? That's a red herring argument. C'mon.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla There's nothing wrong with depending on the SoCoFD. But there IS something wrong with letting your house burn while the kids are still inside then blaming a budget adjustment for their deaths. And no 1 let the house burn to save money. The brownout only changed which firehouse would respond to the call. But again, there's too many variables to just blame the budget then slam the case shut.
1
@seattle8686 I don't disagree with your statement at all. I'm just saying that we need to be mindful of the logic we're using. Is there a direct causal link between the kids dying & the budget cut? Of that, I'm not sure. And I remember that shit where they let the guy's house burn down. I hated it too. And he needs to sue the shit out of that county. But that's a completely different story though.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla You're assuming I don't care about kids. I guess that's an attempt to make me seem callous. That's fine. You're making an emotional appeal instead of a logical 1. I guess you need some traction. That's fine. But you never answered my question. Without googling them, do you even know the kids' names? If not, you're no expert on this case. Therefore you can't pontificate about budget being solely culpable. You MUST look at ALL the factors.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla Of course I understand how quickly fire spreads. What I'm asking is where were the parents. I dunno about you but I'd rather pull my kid out of a fire than wait for the firemen. That's just me & just about anyone else on the planet. Also, I didn't blame the parents. I asked where they were. Nevertheless, you can't just summarily blame money here. There's too many things going on in a fire. Please use some critical thinking.
1
@seattle8686 So you're saying it doesn't matter if the kids would've died or not? Okay. Let's set that aside for a moment. You're arguing hypotheticals? Okay. I'll set those aside too. All that counts to you is that the FD gets there sooner? Okay. I'll buy that that. So where does the money come from? Furthermore, is it not a little ill-conceived to blame budget cuts for those kids' deaths?
1
@seattle8686 I've already listed the variables in the form of questions. But I'll review some for you. My main premise is that we don't know if smoke inhalation, trauma or burns killed the kids. In addition, we don't know if the kids where asthmatic. We don't know the condition of the building. We don't know WHEN & WHERE the kids were pronounced dead. We can't speak for the fatigue level of the firefighters. We can't speak for the firemen's training & experience either. Is that enough?
1
@DeadlyChinchilla Are you just being obtuse? I asked where the parents were? Then on top of that you make up some kind of strawman about rape. That was pretty dumb. But I forgive you. Stay on target. Are you a fire marshal? Do you even know the names of the kids who died without googling it? Nope & nope. Back to square 1. There are too many variables to just blame a budget cut. You're not even trying to see another perspective. I get that. But that's intellectually dishonest on your part.
1
@seattle8686 That's NOT what probability tells us. If you have some actual data, bring it on. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass & trying sound official. WHERE is your data?
1
@seattle8686 You're not USING any logic here. I don't care about insulting you. I don't you. You're a fuckwit on youtube as far as I'm concerned. You're talking about "let's say 50% of Americans have asthma..." when we're on the INTERNET (the world's most dynamic research tool). Idiot, we live in an age when you can't say, "let's just assume..." FYI, the Asthma & Allergy Foundation estimate that about 20M Americans have asthma. THAT'S how you present data. Moron.
1
@DeadlyChinchilla No. I asked if you were obtuse. I said your strawman was dumb. I guess I understand why you depend on other people so much; you don't do things for yourself. I said that response time only dictates when the FD gets there. But you & I both don't know if the kids were already screwed from the outset. Also, I didn't ask if you cared about the kids. I asked if you knew the particulars of THIS case. I asked if you were a fire marshal because you're talking like an expert.
1
@Verto9999 Response ISN'T the number 1 factor. You're not looking at all the possible variables.
1
@LeksServices Sprinklers in homes? Maybe. It'd cost a lot of money & a lot of systems would be going off every time someone sparks a joint. But I don't object to that solution. But where does the money come from? If you consider it an investment, show me your projected numbers. I'm honestly not sure about your idea either way. What I'm open to consideration since we're talking theoretically.
1
@unassumption I can get on board with that approach to studying the problem. All I'm saying is that we can't just blame a budget cut. Yes, these kids' deaths were unfortunate. I'd like to think the deaths were preventable. But do we blame the fire department's administrative changes? Why aren't we looking at what caused the fire & what ultimately caused the deaths instead of blaming the big, bad gubbment?
1
@DeadlyChinchilla This was a very brief article & I admittedly don't know the particulars. But did the kids die from burns, injuries or smoke inhalation? Did the kids already have chronic health issues that complicated an already bad situation? Did the kids die on site, in the ambulance or at the hospital? Where there adequate safety devices? WHERE WERE THE PARENTS? Do you understand that when you're talking about "chance" you can't do it in a vacuum? Think critically.
1
@seattle8686 Let's not "say" anything. Let's see you present some actual data. Show me a study. Show me a causal link. Tell me the precise pathologies. Stop talking out of your ass.
1
@seattle8686 I'll do your thesis about CO poisoning 1 better. How do we know it wasn't bad smoke detectors? How do we know the 911 call wasn't late? Dude, there's way too many nuances here to just blame the budget.
1
@seattle8686 That's a correlation. That's different. But at least you're honest enough to understand why I challenge those fallacies. All that said, we can't argue the potentials of what may have been different because that opens up more reasons to spend more money in an economy that required budget cuts in the 1st place. In any case, it's intellectually dishonest to make "kids die in fire - budget cuts to blame" as a title for a video. There's too many mitigating factors. Feel me?
1
@seattle8686 The outcome is the kids' deaths. If you don't examine those circumstances you can't summarily declare a causal link. How do we know they didn't die in the ER? If they did, can we discuss the competence of the staff at the hospital while we're weighing all this out? I think so. You can't just heap all the blame on the firemen.
1