• Plopp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    With that logic we could cut down pretty much every single forest in Sweden and tell people to stop crying about it.

    • holgersson@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Why the downvotes

      I for my part downvoted because it’s just false equivalence. Cutting down a part of a commercial forest is pretty far from completely cutting “every single forest” in Sweden.

      Is it great that trees were cut down without replanting? No.

      Is there a perfectly cleared and infrastructurally connected plot of land in Brandenburg that Tesla could have used instead? Also no.

      Your comparison was basically the same as “We sell a plot of land to Elon? Why not just sell every plot of land to him then!”.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The point is not that sweden is selling every inch of land to elon.

        The point is that every forest in sweden is “commercial forest” so that’s a meaningless justification.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ok, but take a step back. You’re now using the lack of original forest in Sweden to somehow argue against commercial forest in Germany being chopped down to make way for construction.

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah I see the problem then. I wasn’t trying to equate anything. I was simply addressing the reasoning behind the statement (that non-natural forests don’t matter), taking it to the extreme to make point. I don’t know anything about the forest in question, and I wasn’t talking about it.