>We're exactly talking about fire codes.
No we're not. That poster pointed out how fire codes helped, but that most codes do not. We're talking about building codes.
>But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know?
None of those things have anything at all to do with stamps. That's the point. If the code specified lumber by strength it would be fine. But it specifies lumber by "you have to buy it from an approved member of the lumber cartel" and makes absolutely no mention of strength.
>Probably not, different ways wood can be treated
Building lumber is not treated. If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, why throw out random nonsense?
> But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
Nobody suggested that. Responding to silly strawman arguments is not constructive.
No we're not. That poster pointed out how fire codes helped, but that most codes do not. We're talking about building codes.
>But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know?
None of those things have anything at all to do with stamps. That's the point. If the code specified lumber by strength it would be fine. But it specifies lumber by "you have to buy it from an approved member of the lumber cartel" and makes absolutely no mention of strength.
>Probably not, different ways wood can be treated
Building lumber is not treated. If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, why throw out random nonsense?
> But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
Nobody suggested that. Responding to silly strawman arguments is not constructive.