First of all, you have to prove you’re you.
2 Likes
What is YOU, anyway? What is art? What is nature? How do I know law is really a thing. Why am I asking to represent myself, your Honor? What is honor, anyway?
2 Likes
4 Likes
1 Like
Feel free to amaze us with all the original thoughts you’ve had and original actions you’ve taken and we will have fun pointing out how cliche they all are.
In the immortal words of the Barenaked Ladies (and millions of other people): “It’s all been done before.” Even being worried about being original or cliche is cliche and overdone.
1 Like
#IT’S A SHOOP, SHEEPLE!
3 Likes
This outlook suggests a person who is motivated by what other people think about them. Unfortunately, many artists do fit this description, but I am not convinced that it is a valid assumption in all cases, unless we are resigned to people having fickle motivations. Incentive is for people of poor resolve!
Another two bits of probably uncommon sense which might afford some perspective here:
Since paint is a protective substance, it is generally not the stuff of “vandalism” (ethnocentric much?). The most common remedy for painted graffiti is to pay somebody else some inflated amount to cover it with even more paint! Surprisingly, these fabricated costs don’t usually inspire people to question the reality of the claimed “damages”. “Your $10 of spray enamel has compelled me to pay somebody else $20,000 to paint the same structure - just because!”
Conserving nature by living separately from it is a spectacularly suicidal idea. The notion that humans live separately from natural environments and function as custodians to these environments is laughably dysfunctional. No organism has survived by enacting such a scheme - ever. A few hundred years of it have yielded less fit humans and a trashed ecosphere. Pick any other organism, and you will see that they live intimately connected with other organisms - right down to the microbiome of their physiology. Without that direct inter-relationship, humanity will not improbably fail to survive, or maintain its half-assed “custody” of other organisms. The only strategy for preserving nature anybody has ever found is integration with it, working out an actual ecological niche amongst other organisms.
The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (which was one of the Seven Wonders of the World) not the Parthenon (which wasn’t).
The Parthenon did burn, but was rebuilt afterwards and remained in use as a temple, then a church, then a mosque, for almost 1500 years before it was blown up.
1 Like
Absolutely incorrect, leaving it be is the only successful strategy whenever possible.
1 Like
You seem pretty committed to ignoring the actual specifics of this case.
After Nocket wrote in an Instagram post that she had used acrylic paint – which is very difficult to clean off – another user questioned her about it and she responded: “I know, I’m a bad person.”
I’m not sure what your angle is here, but it’s becoming tiresome. Good day.
5 Likes
Only if the surface being vandalized is already painted. If someone spraypaints rocks or trees, just to use a totally random example, that graffiti is essentially unremovable, and covering it up with more paint is no good.
5 Likes
It’s not all about humans. Our parks generally protect wildlife habitat. Whether you think that’s a good thing or not, I’m not going to argue about that with you.
It sounds like you think snowflakes like this “artist” have special rights that supercede both legal authority and moral consensus. I don’t, and I want this person out of our National Parks since the compulsion to share its “artwork” is too strong.
Do you really side with this person? Because your argument has changed from there’s no clear evidence of guilt to purposely man-made environmental damage is okay. I think most people will think you’re wrong in either argument.
8 Likes
Before this conversation continues, I’m going to need you to define “humans”, “parks”, “protect”, “wildlife”, “habitat”, “argue”, 'artist", “rights”, “legal”, “authority”, “moral”, “consensus”, “national”,“park”, “artwork”, “side”, “person”, “argument”, “changed”, “clear”, “evidence”, “guilt”, “purpose”, “man-made”, “environmental”, “damage”, “okay”, “think”, “wrong” and “define”.
12 Likes
define n.: What you get for painting rocks on federal parkland.
18 Likes
10 Likes
Nobody does pitchforks like reddit.
1 Like
Yes, that’s why I said “generally”. But the value people place upon painting rocks also seems to be quite relative. When it was done by somebody thousands of years ago, then it instantly becomes a “priceless artefact” to be preserved and revered. I am not making any statements about what the value of this painting was, only that I do not trust others to make this evaluation on my behalf - especially when the rationale behind it seems so inconsistent.
On the next episode of @popobawa4u, Attorney At Law:
"Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we cannot look at the facts of the case, we need to look at the meaning of the facts. And in this case, the facts have no meaning, so the facts don’t matter, so we need to look beyond the meaning of the facts. When my client walked into the bank, pointed a gun at the teller, and said, “This is a robbery,” he was commenting about the juxtaposition between John Locke’s Second Treatise of value and property and the ideology of Occupy Wall Street. And when my client said, “Give me all the money!” we cannot actually know whose money it is!
Since we can only admit we know nothing, we cannot know for certain whether the surveillance cameras that filmed my client actually filmed him, his car, and his license plates. When police searched my client’s house and found sacks of money with serial numbers registered to the bank, we cannot know this is actually money! Indeed, Rene Descartes would point out the question isn’t whether the police found sacks or money, but rather, was the money in the sacks at all? The money and the sacks don’t think, therefore they aren’t, and might not be!
Finally, when my client said, “You got me, I did it,” he was referencing the works of Thomas Hobbes and Emmanuel Kant by questioning the exact nature of “me” and “it”! Since we cannot know the true nature of self, we cannot know “me,” or for that matter, “it!” Clearly, the entire case against my client is built upon a shaky foundation of questions that demand answers, but since we have no answers, the questions remain unanswered, and without answers, we have no proof! Without proof, there is no guilt, and in our system of jurisprudence, my client is innocent until proven guilty!"
10 Likes
You couldn’t pay me enough to do that!
What do you suppose are the chances that most courts like to conduct themselves as if they are concerned mostly with practical matters, immune from considerations of metaphysics?
1 Like
Precedent > metaphysics.
Contrariwise, many lawyers and judges have a philosophy background, so I believe many of them could have a lovely conversation with you on the matter 
1 Like
