- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
cross-posted from: https://kbin.earth/m/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone/t/818591
town that always catches on fire rule
cross-posted from: https://kbin.earth/m/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone/t/818591
town that always catches on fire rule
I hate when people are intentionally obtuse. More money is more possibilities for action in our capitalistic society. I’m only listing examples, and I’m not going to plan out and budget LA’s firefighting response for you in a Lemmy comment. The whole point is that when you take someone’s money away, they have less opportunity to do things. Which translates to more widespread losses due to fire–and that’s all there is to it. Can’t believe I have to explain that to you.
No, you’re not going to list LA firefighting measures because there are none that can stop this. Forest fires happen, it’s not the fire department’s fault that they happen. No amount of firefighters makes it not dry and windy. Trying to blame the firefighters for this is fucking absurd. They didn’t fail here Society failed here.
Anything to avoid blaming the people that actually cause the problem.
“Funding agencies doesn’t make them more effective.”
Whatever you want to believe, man. Also, who’s blaming firefighters? When did we start talking about firefighters instead of agency funding?
Their budget is over 800 million dollars. You don’t think they’re funded? That 2% was enough to Cripple them? If that 2% was enough to stop forest fires how come they were forest fires last year when they had it?
As for who’s blaming firefighters. You are. This post is. That’s the whole point of these talking points. To blame firefighters and the LA fire department for this forest fire. Because if fire fighters are the problem then big polluters aren’t. Did you not get that? You’re saying that the current firefighters failed and only more firefighters would have stopped it. Which is a Bonkers mindset but that’s the logic you’re promoting here.