5 ms·
> Its only a tree after all It was bringing a lot more joy and happiness to the world for a lot more people than these idiots. But yeah, extreme punishment isn
by jemmyw 1y ago
> Its only a tree after all
It was bringing a lot more joy and happiness to the world for a lot more people than these idiots. But yeah, extreme punishment isn't bringing it back, and all the folks knowing it was them wot done it is surely punishment in itself. A fine and community service would be plenty.
- cal85 1y agoIt’s not about the tree, nor the joy and happiness it brought to many (as very few people knew of this tree, compared to how many are upset). I think what people really don’t like is the deliberate attempt to upset other people (even if it’s not them) for fun.
- mieses 1y agomaybe if they didn't try to protect specific (or arbitrary) trees by law then idiots (most people) wouldn't try to demonstrate how stupid the law was by cutting the tree down. oh, and you're right, i'm not trying to hide the fact that i'm with the people not the trees - in general and in this specific case.
- normie3000 1y agoWhy is it stupid for specific trees to be protected?
- mieses 1y agofor similar reason why specific people, animals or chairs don't deserve more protection than others.
- flir 1y agoOr buildings? Or mammals? Or Chordata? I don't think this is a well thought out argument.
- mieses 1y agocutting an annoying random tree down in your annoying random neighbor's yard is just as bad as this event. this is the foundation of western civilization. prioritizing one tree over another leads to bad stuff. many have thought this through and many have argued the opposite (as you) and have sought opportunity in dismantling this principle. it's not a new debate, despite what this HN clickbait makes it seem to be.
- xyzzy123 1y agoIs defacing the Mona Lisa the same as defacing a train car, in your view? If there is any difference, would it be related to the value of the object? Would you say a random tree in a backyard has the same "value" as an iconic tree whose destruction is causing widespread outrage?
- jemmyw 1y agoI'm not sure what your argument is, but as far as I'm aware this tree didn't have specific, out of the ordinary, protection. I believe it may have even been on private land so the offense is exactly the same as cutting down a neighbors tree. It also happened to damage a protected heritage site, but those are hardly unique in the UK...
- fdb345 1y agoit had no specific protection. it was just a tree in law. but they have a silly way of 'working out' how much it was valued and that is apparently almost a quarter of a million pounds!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- unfunco 1y agoPresidents, royalty, maybe celebrities, there are plenty of people that deserve extra protection, there are plenty of examples of animal species with small populations that deserve specific protections, and there are chairs that have more protection than others too, the Vitsœ 620 Chair is an example, and a court recognised the chair's design as a "personal, original creation of highly aesthetic value".
- DrBazza 1y agoPeople don’t have ecosystems. Trees do. And they change through age. And many species insects depend on old trees.
- fdb345 1y agonot that many on an invasive non-native tree as we are discussing.
- Freak_NL 1y agoThe punishment, if they are found guilty, will likely be partly intended to act as a deterrent in addition to being punitive and compensative. I.e., a judge could find that setting an example is in the best interest of society, to deter other knuckleheads from vandalising monumental items.