Banksy or vandalism?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

On the grand scale of things, I'll take a little damage you can literally white-wash over to denying people's rights any day.

Until this post I was with you

But wow dude

Street got this one right

Wow, just


wow


I guess what you think is important trumps other people rights

As long as you decide I guess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Well as long as the permit doesn't cost anything, 'cause like, you know... free speech.

Don't most permits have some kind of processing fee?

As to the Building/free standing wall, I see the difference and thing I could back the concept of the protest being on a free standing wall. But in the end some one will want the monies back for cleaning it up, that could be the use of the processing fee.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[quade 4]

The problem I have with absolutist views of slippery slope arguments is it doesn't allow for any grey between black or white.

The world, however, is grey.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,116]

>Is it OK to blow up a building as long as no one is in it Bill Ayres?

If it was your building - would you rather have it blown up or have someone put some graffiti on it?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Is it OK to blow up a building as long as no one is in it Bill Ayres?

If it was your building - would you rather have it blown up or have someone put some graffiti on it?

Niether

But I know private property rights are one of the first things to go in the liberal world view of things

Right after free speech

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Niether

I knew you wouldn't be willing to answer that. Would make the argument look stupid.

>But I know private property rights are one of the first things to go in the liberal world
>view of things

Nice try.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Niether

I knew you wouldn't be willing to answer that. Would make the argument look stupid.

>But I know private property rights are one of the first things to go in the liberal world
>view of things

Nice try.

It is right on!

Quade is will to sacrifice the rights of a property owner so that (what he considers good) graffiti will be allowed not stepping on the criminal’s right to free speech

Go figure

The only thing as twisted is your question
(which left NOTHING to answer)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Quade is will to sacrifice the rights of a property owner so that (what he considers good) graffiti will be allowed not stepping on the criminal’s right to free speech

No Marc. If you read the very first post in this thread you'll see that's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was considering the question and I came to the conclusion it was out of line.

How is it possible you missed that?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It's called a slippery slope. When you start walking down that path, where do you draw the line?

Some on the path (cough, OWS, cough, hack...) are content to walk all the way down it.....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quade is will to sacrifice the rights of a property owner so that (what he considers good) graffiti will be allowed not stepping on the criminal’s right to free speech

No Marc. If you read the very first post in this thread you'll see that's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was onside ring the question and I came to the conclusion it was out of line.

How is it possible you missed that?

If I missed that then I am wrong and I apologize

I read through the thread and I was with you until I replied to one of your posts that seemed to me to keep you in the ,I dont know but it might be alright camp.

Again

I am sorry

Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>The only thing as twisted is your question

Let's try again then:

If it was your building - would you rather have it blown up or have someone put some graffiti on it?

Since you can't answer I will. I have rental property; I would rather have someone spraypaint it than blow it up, because it's easier to clean off the spraypaint. (Of course I'd rather have neither if that were an option.) I'd also rather have someone spraypaint it than lose individual rights to the government. (Again, neither is ideal.)

I am sure you would agree if you weren't in SC-mode.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The only thing as twisted is your question

Let's try again then:

If it was your building - would you rather have it blown up or have someone put some graffiti on it?

Since you can't answer I will. I have rental property; I would rather have someone spraypaint it than blow it up, because it's easier to clean off the spraypaint. (Of course I'd rather have neither if that were an option.) I'd also rather have someone spraypaint it than lose individual rights to the government. (Again, neither is ideal.)

I am sure you would agree if you weren't in SC-mode.

Mode has nothing to do with

Your analogy is taking my point about property rights and free speech rights and trying to relate it to would you rather have it blown up or written on.

And of course, framing it as you did you get the answer you want

Your example does not relate when looking at giving a criminal a pass by stepping on a property owners right. Does not matter if the right is lost to the gov or an individual

Therefore, your question is still twisted (or your analogy sucks, your choice)


Oh, and just to play your game, of course I would rather have the graffiti than loose the building. But there is no fine line between rights and it is NOT grey

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Your example does not relate when looking at giving a criminal a pass by stepping on
>a property owners right.

I agree. (And again you would too - if you weren't in your usual 'disagree with everything that the other side says' mode.)

>Oh, and just to play your game, of course I would rather have the graffiti than
>loose the building.

See? We agree, despite all your angry words.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Your example does not relate when looking at giving a criminal a pass by stepping on
>a property owners right.

I agree. (And again you would too - if you weren't in your usual 'disagree with everything that the other side says' mode.)

>Oh, and just to play your game, of course I would rather have the graffiti than
>loose the building.

See? We agree, despite all your angry words.

Anger?

Hardly

just pointing out the obvious


Oh, and nice to know I have a "mode"

Now that I know they exist myself and others can point yours out too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

On the grand scale of things, I'll take a little damage you can literally white-wash over to denying people's rights any day.

What "right" is there to deface another's property?

I've heard it said that "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

If someone wants to paint this on their own property, fine. No problems, no arguments. Even if they want to rent a billboard and put it up, fine. I think it would be protected speech under the "parody" definition. Chick-Fil-A did sue for copyright infringement when someone copied the style of their ads.

But vandalism is vandalism. And should be prosecuted as such.

There was a case some years back near me where a guy stole a flag, took a dump on it and left it on the local golf course.
He was charged and convicted of misdemeanor theft and vandalism (correctly IMO) but got the felony flag desecration thrown out. (again correctly IMO). http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=9480

The tagger should face the same consequences as any other tagger.
Because of the action, not the message.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[quade 4]

When did I say he shouldn't?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[winsor 236]

When I was in Spain many moons ago, a youngster saw fit to apply paint to a wall - something to the effect of "Franco leaves something to be desired."

The Guardia Civil came upon him, fired 32 some-odd warning shots into him, and drove off.

This action was viewed in some circles as a tad harsh, but there were not a lot of volunteers to pick up where the kid left off. IIRC, Spain was remarkably graffiti-free at the time.


BSBD,

Winsor

[quade 4]

Oh, come now, Winsor, certainly they're not all Fascists. I'm sure some of the people in this thread are just well meaning folks going along with their leaders.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Ends justify the means.... Got it.

So who draws the line at how much damage is acceptable? Do the liberals get to inflict more damage than the conservatives? Are you going to come up with a formula that says "so much injustice allows for so much damage to a persons property?"

How far down this road to you want to go?

Is it OK to blow up a building as long as no one is in it Bill Ayres?

Interesting concept. Can we apply it to collateral damage? Like how many innocent people dying in a war is acceptable?

Is an American wall worth more than an Iraqi woman?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Oh, come now, Winsor, certainly they're not all Fascists. I'm sure some of the people in this thread are just well meaning folks going along with their leaders.

Well lookie here

Did not take long to see the "if they dont agree with me someone else is telling them what to think" bs



So predictable

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ends justify the means.... Got it.

So who draws the line at how much damage is acceptable? Do the liberals get to inflict more damage than the conservatives? Are you going to come up with a formula that says "so much injustice allows for so much damage to a persons property?"

How far down this road to you want to go?

Is it OK to blow up a building as long as no one is in it Bill Ayres?

Interesting concept. Can we apply it to collateral damage? Like how many innocent people dying in a war is acceptable?

Is an American wall worth more than an Iraqi woman?

You gotta talk to the team that hides within the inocents or you aint got a thing to bitch about

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln