- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://kbin.earth/m/[email protected]/t/818591
town that always catches on fire rule
cross-posted from: https://kbin.earth/m/[email protected]/t/818591
town that always catches on fire rule
Uh, maybe they could have called in another of our own fire fighting planes instead of of relying on Canada for an extra one? Better training, better contingency plans, installation of fire breaks, more input into city infrastructure like fire water ponds here and there to supply water? What the hell are you trying to get at when there are numerous things they could have done with more funding both in the past and at this very moment?
What training stops this fire? What amount of fire department budget allows them to redo all the zoning in the wealthy part of Los Angeles? Really I find that maybe the most absurd part of your comment. Yeah I’m sure they’ll have real sway over the nimbys. You think this budget cut is the reason they don’t have an entire another plane and the crew to run it? And one single plane would have been the difference?
What I’m getting at is this is all fucking nonsense. No a 17 million cut to the firefighter budget is not why this fire happened. This is climate change. This is dryer windier conditions leading to fire. It doesn’t take $17 million dollars to fix that. It takes massive societal change. You people are always looking for quick easy answers to everything and it’s just absurd.
well does police being founded stop a crime from happening? does haveing a car mechanic around prevent your car from breaking down? its the same with firefighters. they do prevent these events to an extend. regular car check ups keep the engine going, police presents keeps areas safer and firefighters overviewing critical situations helps detect and extinguis fires early.
But all of those jobs have also a reactionary nature. sure its best to never need fire fighters, but you cant undercut it. because founding them after the fire is too late. Cutting their budget shows low insight and thats what the post makes fun of.
Since when does police being funded stop crime from happening? That’s what your entire argument hinges on?
well id suggest you read it again if that was your only take from the comment. also does, or does not, police reduce crime at a big festival, or at a demonstration or any other gathering of people? Do police regulating traffic reduce traffic accidents by enforcing traffic laws?
Ever heard of gang ruled areas? those can exist because of underfounded police. id say those have higher crime than police controlled cities.
Also again, not at all the essense of my comment, but rather a supporting point.
No, I reject your entire premise. If you want to sit here and tell me throwing money at cops prevents crime you’re going to have to prove it. Cuz the entire history of this nation rather begs to differ.
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.