Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by fdb345 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

fdb345

What a couple of morons.

I cant believe they've gone Not Guilty.

The state will sacrifice them to their gods.

An example will be made and these men will be severely punished on a much harder scale that what is deserved.

Its only a tree after all. It wasn't even documented until that silly Robin Hood movie.

View on HN

> 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.

It’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.

maybe 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.

Why is it stupid for specific trees to be protected?

for similar reason why specific people, animals or chairs don't deserve more protection than others.

Or buildings? Or mammals? Or Chordata?

I don't think this is a well thought out argument.

cutting 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.

Is 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?

I'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...

it 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!

Presidents, 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".

People don’t have ecosystems. Trees do. And they change through age. And many species insects depend on old trees.

The 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.

They should both be made take a chainsaw to their shins and denied medical attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com