Odds are great that a person set the fire regardless of climate impact.
I mean, that’s kinda redundant… That’s unless you had previously thought it had been lightning on a clear day, or maybe Bambi with a Zippo.
Unless you are proposing that we have a zero open flame policy in one of the most populated states in America… Then I really don’t see the benefit of blaming any single individual.
People have been lighting fires in California for thousands of years, the reason they are no longer manageable is because of climate change, and because we refuse to spend the time and money on land management.
people who set fires that cause this much damage and loss of life should be executed by being burned at the stake
And then no one ever made a fire again and everyone clapped…
This would do literally nothing to curtail wildfires in the future. I mean the last big one was started by an electric companies faulty equipment. Are we executing the power grid next?
Sure it is. Very direct wording and verbiage. So if and when they discover the people that set a fire that killed 25 people so far, what would be an adequate punishment?
Was my response not direct? I was clearly mocking your assertion by highlighting the illogical nature of your claim.
So if and when they discover the people that set a fire that killed 25 people so far
What leads you to believe that a person committed arson with the intent of killing 25 people?
Or are you claiming that intent has no influence when it comes to the prescription of justice?
Let’s propose a scenario… Your neighbor unbeknownst to you is unsafely storing a dangerous amount of fuel in his yard. You may have occasionally caught a whif of fumes in the air, but hey prob not a big deal. You decide to do a little BBQ or work on your car or whatever, and by chance an ember sparks his fuel and burns down the neighborhood.
Are you or your neighbor to blame? You were the source of the ignition, but it would have never happened unless someone hadn’t been creating an obviously dangerous environment.
what would be an adequate punishment?
What is the purpose of your punishment, and how do you define adequate?
Do you seriously think there is a degree of punishment that will change people’s behavior on a societal scale? If capital punishment was actually effective at curbing negative behavior, wouldn’t we have only had to do it one time?
In the end if the purpose of your punishment is meaningless all you really wanted to begin with is to see someone suffer.
I mean, that’s kinda redundant… That’s unless you had previously thought it had been lightning on a clear day, or maybe Bambi with a Zippo.
Unless you are proposing that we have a zero open flame policy in one of the most populated states in America… Then I really don’t see the benefit of blaming any single individual.
People have been lighting fires in California for thousands of years, the reason they are no longer manageable is because of climate change, and because we refuse to spend the time and money on land management.
And then no one ever made a fire again and everyone clapped…
This would do literally nothing to curtail wildfires in the future. I mean the last big one was started by an electric companies faulty equipment. Are we executing the power grid next?
You want to have a discussion or you want to be a smartass?
You were the one who said we should execute people on stakes. That’s not really an invitation for a discussion.
Sure it is. Very direct wording and verbiage. So if and when they discover the people that set a fire that killed 25 people so far, what would be an adequate punishment?
Was my response not direct? I was clearly mocking your assertion by highlighting the illogical nature of your claim.
What leads you to believe that a person committed arson with the intent of killing 25 people?
Or are you claiming that intent has no influence when it comes to the prescription of justice?
Let’s propose a scenario… Your neighbor unbeknownst to you is unsafely storing a dangerous amount of fuel in his yard. You may have occasionally caught a whif of fumes in the air, but hey prob not a big deal. You decide to do a little BBQ or work on your car or whatever, and by chance an ember sparks his fuel and burns down the neighborhood.
Are you or your neighbor to blame? You were the source of the ignition, but it would have never happened unless someone hadn’t been creating an obviously dangerous environment.
What is the purpose of your punishment, and how do you define adequate?
Do you seriously think there is a degree of punishment that will change people’s behavior on a societal scale? If capital punishment was actually effective at curbing negative behavior, wouldn’t we have only had to do it one time?
In the end if the purpose of your punishment is meaningless all you really wanted to begin with is to see someone suffer.
Better a smartass than a dumbass.
I don’t really know what you want to discuss with me? Imo the silliness of my response matches the silliness of your original claim.
Anyone who believes society as a whole responds positively to outdated ideas of “justice” like capital punishment should be mocked.