>>116607I've never carved anything in a tree.
>>116601OP didn't say anything one way or the other, he just asked for opinions. As for insulting my maturity, get fucked bro.
Are you american or european?
American: I know you have a fascination with the 'untouched' wilderness, but get over it chump, nothing we see today is completely unaffected by humans. As for laws to protect the environment from us plebs, they're just in place so that when needed, the resources on those lands can be exploited, probably for profit. (for instance, 44.5 million acres of federally protected land are leased to oil companies alone) (
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/federal-land-oil-drilling.htm, also the Alaska Pipeline)
European: as you come from a land that is basically city/suburb/farmland, with precious little in the way of 'conserved' land, I can understand the need to ensure protection of every tree. Understand, that as a Canadian, there is enough wilderness around me that each person in this country could go chop down a tree right this instant, and you know what would happen? nothing, and then some more would grow. That's the great thing about nature, as someone said, the trees will die and rot away, and re-enter the cycle, non the worse for having 'suck me' carved into them.
You raise a good point though, not everyone could do it at once, and I suppose I am trying to prove people wrong, but that's just because it's my opinion that it's not that bad of a thing to do, I fail to see how defending that makes me any less mature than someone who posts images like
>>116580 and
>>116574, or insults my intelligence for disagreeing with them, but you can't expect much on the internet I suppose.
You're clearly not going to be convinced, and neither will I, so we'll have to agree to disagree, i guess. Cheers mate, thanks for being reasonable in the end and actually explaining yourself, most people don't want to do that.
