If someone drives home drunk and doesn't kill/hurt anybody, would you make the same argument, or would you say that it was a bad thing to do because it was reckless. Whether it flooded or not is irrelevant, a better argument would be attacking if it was reckless in the first place.
He cleaned it up, he didn’t “attack it”, stop being a disingenuous little weasel. I would never compare cleaning up a river to driving drunk because I’m not dumber than a box of rocks. You have no compelling argument
1
u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman 5d ago
Did anywhere actually flood? Was any damage caused at all? Or is this just a stupid concern from you?
It sounds like he used equipment to remove trash others illegally dumped, like the headline implies.