I'm not a libertarian, I don't want to see dead people the used drugs left to rot on the sidewalk or rich people left on the bottom if there is a reasonable possibility of rescue/recovery.

I don't want to see it either. If I were a relative or particularly moved by the plight of the affected I would donate to volunteer rescue efforts but I don't think I should be compelled to do so (by having my tax dollars spent on it without my consent). But there are a lot more egregious abuses of my tax dollars that need to be eliminated before this becomes a hill I'll die on. My only action on this matter will be casual discussion.

 

But what qualifies as knowingly and recreationally engaging in a risky venture? Who decides this? When do they decide it?

We can pick an easy place to start: if you signed a waiver, you know, you decided it, at the time of signing.

Are people going to be held accountable for rescue efforts that they neither requested nor authorized?

Well, yeah, if we are going to be consistent. Ever seen the bill for Life Flight? Or even just an ambulance?

But I don't think these things (or any life saving efforts) should cost individuals money.

I'm sure that will sound inconsistent since I've already made a libertarian impression but I'm not sure how much it is prudent to expound.

 

I would donate to volunteer rescue efforts but I don't think I should be compelled to do so (by having my tax dollars spent on it without my consent).

You aren’t being compelled to spend anything. IMHO once paid, tax dollars are no longer yours. Tax dollars are an obligation to pay into a fund for the general good. For our benefit. Your only say in how the money is spent is during public elections.

It is this emphasis on mine that I see is a societal flaw. The emphasis should be on ours.

 

We can pick an easy place to start: if you signed a waiver, you know, you decided it, at the time of signing.

You sign a waiver for just about everything you do and they seldom have any tie to the level of risk of the venture -- the waiver you sign to go white water rafting or skydiving is almost identical to the one you sign to go through Cave of the Winds or race go carts or play a round of golf. They are merely attempts (often unenforceable) to prevent you from suing someone else, not to acknowledge that you are doing something extremely risky. Plus, there's a lot of SAR resources spent on people that got lost while hunting/hiking/fishing and activities like those seldom involve someone signing a waiver.

 

It is this emphasis on mine that I see is a societal flaw. The emphasis should be on ours.

That's really what's at the heart of my argument and why I specified knowingly and recreationally. If you're a sailor braving the seas to import/export goods needed by society and your ship goes down, then we owe you a rescue effort. You knew the risk of the profession but you did it anyway because we needed you to.

But if you braved the seas in a dinghy trying to set a record, you did it for you, for your own entertainment, then do we still owe you the rescue effort? I say no. Don't speak for we though.

 

 

In my opinion the compulsion to help people in danger is a good sign of a moral and compassionate society/person with the proper empathy instincts and money shouldn't ever even enter into the equation.

 

In my opinion the compulsion to help people in danger is a good sign of a moral and compassionate society/person with the proper empathy instincts and money shouldn't ever even enter into the equation.

The operative word being "shouldn't" ...

 

In my opinion the compulsion to help people in danger is a good sign of a moral and compassionate society/person with the proper empathy instincts and money shouldn't ever even enter into the equation.

Money is as much part of the equation as the "=" character, before an incident ever occurs. You can have double the minimum level of compulsion to help others as is required to meet anyone's definition of a moral and compassionate society/person with the proper empathy instincts, but without a helicopter, ship, army, navy, whatever, you will accomplish nothing. Someone has to pay that bill.

Lines have to be drawn somewhere. Priorities must be established. If you go out looking for trouble and find it, you should expect to also find yourself across that line and at the bottom of the list of priorities.

Did you know that at the same time we had resources deployed looking for these chuckleheads there was another nautical disaster with searches ongoing for people that hadn't even signed up for their own demise?

At least 78 people have died and more than 100 have been rescued after their fishing boat sank off southern Greece.
But survivors have suggested as many as 750 people may have been packed on to the boat, with reports of 100 children in the hold.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65901005

Seems to me, those kids deserved more help than Stockton Rush. But they were across a line we drew; a geographical line.

Such is the unfortunate reality; we can't help everyone, and in deciding who we will help, striking the names of people who brought tragedy on themselves in favor of innocent victims of circumstance makes more sense to me than striking the names of people whose passport looks different than our own.

 

Personally, I would never make the choice between who deserves to be rescued more. (unless we are talking about an enemy at war, or such thing)

In the case of limited resources, I would make the choice based on things like most likely to succeed and such things.

If you are somehow suggesting the Canadian and US Coast Guard should have sailed to the Mediterranean to assist the Greek Coast Guard...I don't really know what to say about that.

 

Personally, I would never make the choice between who deserves to be rescued more. (unless we are talking about an enemy at war, or such thing)

Not sure what you mean. You've never had to make the choice? Or you're a conscientious objector to choice making? Either way it makes little sense to me. You make this choice every time you pass a homeless person and don't invite them into your home.

If you are somehow suggesting the Canadian and US Coast Guard should have sailed to the Mediterranean to assist the Greek Coast Guard...I don't really know what to say about that.

I don't know the status of Canadian forces but the American Navy is pertetually deployed all over the planet. I'm sure we had at least one ship within a day's sail. Sometimes our forces help out (ex: Fukushima) other times they don't. It comes down to resources.

We can't help everyone everywhere so we make choices. I'm only talking about the criteria we use to make the choices. It comes across to me that you're insinuating that my willingness to acknowledge that the choices exist and must be made based on a certain criteria, reflects a deficiency in my morality. If I am accurately receiving your message then I reject any such judgment from anyone who claims not to make such choices. Anyone existing within a society makes these choices on a daily basis and if you helped everyone who needed you, you would have nothing.

 

I don't know the status of Canadian forces but the American Navy is pertetually deployed all over the planet. I'm sure we had at least one ship within a day's sail. Sometimes our forces help out (ex: Fukushima) other times they don't. It comes down to resources.

These are just the larger official events that awards were given out.
https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/MRA_Docs/OEPM/HSM List - Final - 2021 04 01.pdf

Two that I was involved with.
"Iran Hostage Rescue 24-Apr-80 25-Apr-80 Iran"
Operation Boat People 21-Jul-79 30-Jun-84 Southeast Asia

 

Your homeless person scenario is a strawman...the choice is not between which person to save but whether I will save a homeless person at all.

You could make the argument that there are millions upon millions of people I choose not to save on a daily basis, and all of the puppies in the shelters too.

But if it did come down to which homeless person I would save...it would definitely be the hot redhead.

 

Hot redhead?

I know, saving them is mainly a lost cause but, what the hell, we need to try on all levels.

 

These are just the larger official events that awards were given out.
https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/MRA_Docs/OEPM/HSM List - Final - 2021 04 01.pdf

Two that I was involved with.
"Iran Hostage Rescue 24-Apr-80 25-Apr-80 Iran"
Operation Boat People 21-Jul-79 30-Jun-84 Southeast Asia

I never had the opportunity to be involved in humanitarian service while I was in, but my brother did. That's why I used Fukushima as my example - I referred not necessarily to the nuclear accident but to the tsunami that caused it. He was stationed in Japan during the tsunami and spent weeks searching for bodies, helping the hurting and lost. It was not a good situation.

You could make the argument that there are millions upon millions of people I choose not to save on a daily basis, and all of the puppies in the shelters too.

Yes, that was my point exactly.

the choice is not between which person to save but whether I will save a homeless person at all.

Ok, well if that was your point then I'm not sure why you felt compelled to speak up. I unburden myself of your judgement.

 

I think the discussion about which people deserve to be rescued is fine in an academic discussion but should not be practiced in real life.

And I'm not trying to judge you...only you can do that.

 

Never let a tragedy go to waste ... especially if it's in bad taste:

Subway faces backlash over 'distasteful' sign at Georgia store referencing imploded Titan sub: 'Do better'

​

 

Are there any engineers left in the house?

 

Are there any engineers left in the house?

Of course, you can always count on the Hooodraulic press channel.

 

Are there any engineers left in the house?

No, but there are a few "Experts" in both aviation and now sub implosions. It just seems funny to me how when there is a tragedy how they come out of the woodwork.