Comment by newspaper1
5 hours ago
They cut down part of a forest without a permit. That is a factual statement. It doesn't matter what kind of trees they were.
5 hours ago
They cut down part of a forest without a permit. That is a factual statement. It doesn't matter what kind of trees they were.
The point is that if the local commercial developer cleared the forest without the permit, it probably would not have even caught the ear of the local news. They pay the fine and move on. Happens all the time in bureaucratic systems.
Clearing the forest and failing to get the permit are two distinct events here. Google is in trouble for failing to get the permit. Not for clearing the trees. Everyone on both sides was aware the trees were coming down. Think of it like camping at a campsite without getting a permit first.
Failure to get a permit is non-news for almost every entity on Earth. Except when you are megacorp, hence my comment.
> Failure to get a permit is non-news for almost every entity on Earth.
Corporations should not break the law, period. Weird that anyone would defend that.
We live in state where it is very hard to do anything without breaking law, so some common sense judgement is required before coming to morality verdict.
It is a factual but actively misleading statement.
The forest was put up specifically to be cut down. The default state for these trees was to be cut down.
If you can’t see the difference between this and clear cutting of something like an old growth forest, then there’s nothing left worth saying to you.
Absurd mental gymnastics here - of course it matters (and on wholly-owned, non-public land as well).
You think Google should just get to do whatever they want? I don't. Get the permit. We should throw everyone responsible into prison.
We retain different baseline assumptions.
It makes no sense to need a permit to cut down logging forest (legally acquired private property) in the first place, so I'm wholly unbothered by Google's actions and don't believe they reflect a moral wrong.