Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok with the massive cyclone hitting Queensland Australia.
This is the story so far, facts maybe wrong as its reported by the media.

In one of the costal areas predicted to be hit with massive stormsurges(sea level rises) Of over 9m above maxium tide.. thats right 9M.
After a campaign of door to door by police, by phone calls to land lines and mobiles, and SMS messages.
telling everyone one.
GET THE OUT, GET OUT NOW BEFORE ITS TO LATE.
The Evacuation was MANDATORY.
Once the storm hits it is to late, and we cant help you.

A group of 6 people decided to stay.....
As the storm has now hit they are now getting flooded, and have actually rung emergency services asking for help.. as a cyclone with 290km hour winds is in effect.

So assuming no mitigating factors...
Do these people actually deserve to die?

My answer and feeling is YES.
I am not being cruel or horrible... these people were warned.. they ignored the warnings... now when they are facing possible death they want others to come risk there own lives and good chance of dieing to save them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
Ok


My answer and feeling is YES.
I am not being cruel or horrible... these people were warned.. they ignored the warnings... now when they are facing possible death they want others to come risk there own lives and good chance of dieing to save them.
I agree. I'm gonna do what I wanna do. I don't care what you think of my decision.
Now, if my decision puts me in a dangerous position, who then am I to ask YOU to go into harms way to save ME from my own poor decision,,,,my stupidity?
Call it natural selection. Call it cruel. Nature takes care of it's own. The government has tried to outlaw stupidity. I think it is wrong to try to do so!
 

·
Professional Pessimist
Joined
·
191 Posts
If they want to stay, that's their prerogative.

People have the natural human right to engage in behavior that increases risk to safety. Safety is an individual responsibility. While societal organizations can foster a culture of safety, or provide for easy access to safe behaviors - these are no substitutes for safe individual conduct.

It seems silly to stay behind, but maybe they know something the police don't. Maybe they can't stomach the idea of the government being allowed to drive them from their own homes under the guise of compassion and concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,601 Posts
Sounds similar to Katrina to me. Fair warning to leave. If you think you can survive by staying you have to live (or die) with that decision. It shouldn't be anyone's, or the governments, responsibility to rescue you.

My question to those that stay then decide they messed up, would they then be willing to cover the costs to save them? Including possible murder charges if someone dies in the rescue attempt?
 

·
Pantomime Villain
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
Ok with the massive cyclone hitting Queensland Australia.
This is the story so far, facts maybe wrong as its reported by the media.

In one of the costal areas predicted to be hit with massive stormsurges(sea level rises) Of over 9m above maxium tide.. thats right 9M.
After a campaign of door to door by police, by phone calls to land lines and mobiles, and SMS messages.
telling everyone one.
GET THE OUT, GET OUT NOW BEFORE ITS TO LATE.
The Evacuation was MANDATORY.
Once the storm hits it is to late, and we cant help you.

A group of 6 people decided to stay.....
As the storm has now hit they are now getting flooded, and have actually rung emergency services asking for help.. as a cyclone with 290km hour winds is in effect.

So assuming no mitigating factors...
Do these people actually deserve to die?

My answer and feeling is YES.
I am not being cruel or horrible... these people were warned.. they ignored the warnings... now when they are facing possible death they want others to come risk there own lives and good chance of dieing to save them.
Actually you're just typical of the sort of person I despise. Do they deserve to die? Absolutely not - I hope they pull through despite the odds. You, on the other hand, appear to hope they will be, for want of a better word, punished for turning down good advice.

Should they expect others to put their lives on the line? No absolutely not - they had a chance to get out and failed to do so. But they don't "deserve" to die for their foolishness.

Besides, they may have had compelling reasons for staying put - fear of having all their worldly possessions being looted is a reasonable one.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
FrankLee
Lets review then taking your stance.

Govement
Get out now its for your own saftey

Response
**** YOU GOVEMENT DONT TELL US TO ABANDON OUR HOMES UNDER GUISE OF COMPASSION AND CARE.

Cyclone hits
HELP US HELP US GOVEMENT SHOW US COMPASSION AND CARE.
WE DONT WANT TO DIE!
 

·
Pantomime Villain
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
Sounds similar to Katrina to me. Fair warning to leave. If you think you can survive by staying you have to live (or die) with that decision. It shouldn't be anyone's, or the governments, responsibility to rescue you.

My question to those that stay then decide they messed up, would they then be willing to cover the costs to save them? Including possible murder charges if someone dies in the rescue attempt?
Murder charges? That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.
So dumb I can't even be arsed to point out the obvious pre-requisites for either manslaughter or murder charges.
 

·
Adventurer
Joined
·
19,333 Posts
Sounds similar to Katrina to me. Fair warning to leave. If you think you can survive by staying you have to live (or die) with that decision. It shouldn't be anyone's, or the governments, responsibility to rescue you.

My question to those that stay then decide they messed up, would they then be willing to cover the costs to save them? Including possible murder charges if someone dies in the rescue attempt?
So using you logic if a cop pulles you over for speeding and in the process of writing you a ticket and a drunk driver plows into the cop car killing him you should be charged with murder for after all if you were not speeding the cop wouldnt have pulled you over and thus still be alive?

doesnt sound very fair for a speeding ticket now does it

i could see them being made to pay cost for there rescue but murder charges you lost like 30 inteligence points with me man as that was a really dumb comment
 

·
Professional Pessimist
Joined
·
191 Posts
FrankLee
Lets review then taking your stance.

Govement
Get out now its for your own saftey

Response
**** YOU GOVEMENT DONT TELL US TO ABANDON OUR HOMES UNDER GUISE OF COMPASSION AND CARE.

Cyclone hits
HELP US HELP US GOVEMENT SHOW US COMPASSION AND CARE.
WE DONT WANT TO DIE!
What you're doing is a form of argument called absurd extension, or the 'strawman' argument. It's easy to ridicule a ridiculous subject.

My argument is simple: Your safety is your responsibility. Your safety is not my responsibility, nor is it within my right to demand that you behave in a way that I feel is more appropriate.
If you follow the logic out, you'll see that demanding people behave the way you want - even if you delude yourself into believing what you're doing is compassionate - is futile. Eventually, even if you can coddle someone for an entire lifetime, they're going to die. You will have done the species no service either, having thwarted even the pitiful force of evolution available to us.

By the way - the kind of people with the brains and the intestinal fortitude to tough out a natural disaster are generally the kind that aren't whining for help after the fur flies either. But you wouldn't know that, because the ones that functioned normally don't make the news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
This points to one of the major problems with humanity. We have stupidly short memories. We should learn from the past. I'm an Earth Science Teacher, and one of the most important things I try to drill into my students head is something a professor of Geology once told me: "if it happened in the past, it's gonna happen again, and if it hasn't happened in a long time, it's gonna happen soon."

It's not about IF the hurricane hits, it's about WHEN the hurricane hits. It's not about IF the volcano erupts, it's about WHEN the volcano erupts.

Humans think we can control nature. And we cling to pointless and unnecessary possessions. That was the problem with this situation. They thought they could win, and they thought that all the crap in their house was important. It was the wrong mentality. The 'it can't happen to me' mentality. I've been accused of being overly doom and gloom, but I'll be the first guy my friends and family will call when SHTF.

Do they deserve to die... The angry part of me who is frustrated with being completely surrounded by nieve and ignorant people who are more concerned with their ipad says yes. But the truth is I do hope they survive, because maybe it will teach them a lesson, and that lesson might get spread around a little bit.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Franklee
*COUGH*
Since you want to be picky.

Stawman argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
You suggested they took action simply because the govement told them to move.
You also suggested the govements actions for telling them to move had other motives. hence the use "guise" of concern.

Would you like to share what the Queensland govements real motive is then.
Absurd extension buddy, that a cyclone that is comming in and going to cause posibly BILLIONS of dollars worth of damage and thousands of deaths, the primary concern isnt for the people and attempting to move them has other motives then keeping them alive.

Thats right, you started with a stawman argument with an absurd assumption.

I never said or even claimed it was right for the govement to force them to move, only that they KNEW what was comming, decided to stay, then expect help to be sent.
Would you like to explain EXACTLY what part of this topic the ability of the govement to force them to move actually matters except as peripheral information.

The topic was VERY specific.
Possibly fatal actions that can result in death, and if they deserve to die instead of rescue crews that would most likely suffer deaths if they attempt to save them.
Stay on topic and no problems :)
 

·
Professional Pessimist
Joined
·
191 Posts
Franklee
*COUGH*
Since you want to be picky.

Stawman argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
You suggested they took action simply because the govement told them to move.
You also suggested the govements actions for telling them to move had other motives. hence the use "guise" of concern.

Would you like to share what the Queensland govements real motive is then.
Absurd extension buddy, that a cyclone that is comming in and going to cause posibly BILLIONS of dollars worth of damage and thousands of deaths, the primary concern isnt for the people and attempting to move them has other motives then keeping them alive.

Thats right, you started with a stawman argument with an absurd assumption.

I never said or even claimed it was right for the govement to force them to move, only that they KNEW what was comming, decided to stay, then expect help to be sent.
Would you like to explain EXACTLY what part of this topic the ability of the govement to force them to move actually matters except as peripheral information.

The topic was VERY specific.
Possibly fatal actions that can result in death, and if they deserve to die instead of rescue crews that would most likely suffer deaths if they attempt to save them.
Stay on topic and no problems :)
First, I responded directly to your post. If you have an issue with the topical nature, look further upstream.
What you've done in your 'warn/ignore/scream for help' scenario is willfully slanted the premise of the argument - by presuming that everyone who stayed behind would turn and cry for help. This is not a realistic case. There are probably some portion of your hypothetical squatters that are in fact prepared for the eventuality of a cyclone.

Do first responders have an obligation to render aid to people that willfully ignored warning? Not in my opinion. And the people who live in an area that may or may not be hit by a cyclone have no obligation to heed the warning.

Further, the warning may have been incorrect, or overstated. The schools in my area have almost universally been cancelled today for a 'massive' snowstorm in my area that turned out to be virtually nothing. Woops, right? What if your hypothetical cyclone never hit your hypothetical village, but a family of 4 was killed driving away? Does Queensland foot the bill for that one? And while I'm at it 'buddy', me opining on the motives of some government entity other than my own would hardly be on topic. If you want intelligent discussion on your topic, skip the forum-warrior routine.

It's a grown-up world, and some people are capable of grown-up decisions.
 

·
Capability, not scenarios
Joined
·
11,893 Posts
Do they deserve to die? No.

Do they deserve to have others put their lives at risk because they were too stupid to leave when they were given the chance? No.
 

·
Mod Certified PITA!
Joined
·
12,092 Posts
Whether you deserve to die from stupidity is neither here nor there; the simple fact is, being stupid can lead to fatal consequences for yourself and others. Being stupid is NOT a survival trait.

In this case the matter would appear to be moot, because unless someone wants to be a hero (which might well lead to being an hero), these six are out of reach and out of luck. They should perhaps follow the lead of the New Orleans woman who call 911 during the height of Katrina, admitted she'd been stupid and stayed behind, and was now trapped in her house and the water was rising, could someone come save her? After the operator explained emergency services couldn't do anything, the woman sadly concentrated on leaving final messages for her loved ones. After the storm, the authorities delivered those for her, she being in no condition to do so. Ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
Natural consequences are, um, natural

Do they DESERVE to die is, in my opinion, asking the wrong question.

Asking the "DESERVE" question makes a moral argument and nature does what nature does. What many forget is that actions and behaviors have consequences.

If you put your hand in fire it will burn your flesh. If you grossly overindulge in alcohol you will eventually poison your system and die. If you do stupid stuff, eventually you will suffer unpleasant stuff. It makes no sense to ask if it's fair or if the negative consequences are deserved... nature doesn't care.:cool:
 

·
My Temperature is Right
Joined
·
5,578 Posts
Unfortunately the answer is yes. Help is unavailable and you literally left your butt flapping in the breeze no one else. The same thing happens during every major storm, and smart commanders lock their people down and let dummies fend for themselves. It's extremely dumb to expose trained talent to likely death or serious injury to bring back folk who are too intelligent to pay attention to civil authorities.
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Top