|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Trespass on SSSI sites |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 12:52
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: But what's wrong with having different opinions? We don't have to call a halt to the discussion at all. I think you want to stop the discussion because you don't want to elaborate on the who and why. If you don't think it's black and white, then why not explain your more nuanced greyish view? You might educate a few other people even if you can't change poor Nigel's mind. And by provocatively speculating about reasons why I may not wish to continue debating, you're demonstrating exactly why I don't see much point in continuing - if a discussion's not productive, then there's no point, is there? For the record, the very question of "who and why" is a leading, straw-man argument. It suggests the need for further definition and rules, which is entirely contrary to the point I was making - as Nigel well knows. I'm sure, for example, that there are people already visiting Skara Brae without permission. The world hasn't come to an end. Thousands of visitors haven't started flocking there after dark. The monument hasn't been damaged. By all means, debate amongst yourselves "who and why". Personally, I'm quite happy with the status quo, where rules aren't rigidly and blindly adhered to.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 12:53
|
||
Sincere apologies, it was mean to be light-hearted, not serious. (The internet again...)
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 12:58
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Sincere apologies, it was mean to be light-hearted, not serious. (The internet again...) Apology gratefully accepted. Tone is very hard to convey on-line :)
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 13:04
|
||
|
I honestly thought you were joking? If you can't tell that it's a ten foot high NO then what on earth have we been discussing here? How could you think the following said yes? (or are you just winding me up?) If you want extracts from my immensely long post then here they are- "If that means the general public can't wander around Skara Brae, Stonehenge, Silbury, then that's how it is. And we are the general public. Even though some of us might like to think we're extra special and the rules don't apply to us. OF COURSE I'd like to sit in Skara Brae, who bloody wouldn't? But it's irrelevant, because the rule is no one is allowed to do that. The question is, am I more special than everyone else, do I have some special right to bend the rules that apply to everyone else for the good of the site? What's more important in the long run, the welfare of the site or me satisfying my impulse? The people looking after Silbury, Skara Brae, Stonehenge, you'd like to think they are people who have the sites' protection at heart, and they're experienced / educated people who have been hired for their expertise. So if they decide we shouldn't trample all over Silbury etc, in this case I'm willing to believe that it's quite a good decision)"
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 13:06
|
||
|
also I said "You seem to imply you just wouldn't be able to help yourself at Skara Brae. It's not a matter of huge willpower though? Erm shall I shan't I? Oh I simply must, I can't hold myself back, it's beyond my control? Surely not. Also you seem to imply I'm being dishonest to myself for claiming I wouldn't do it. But I'm far from perfect and I really don't think I would. I think I could bear to hold myself back. It wouldn't be too much of a dilemma." Er that's a no. I deliberately clarified it for you in the next post.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 13:07
|
||
|
"Personally, I'm quite happy with the status quo, where rules aren't rigidly and blindly adhered to." Its a strange status quo for you to support. You're saying youre happy the rule is there as it serves a good purpose and nearly everyone obeys it, except you. Shouldnt you give EVERYONE your right to ignore it, in other words ditch it, rather than saying youre happy with it?
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 13:12
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: I honestly thought you were joking? If you can't tell that it's a ten foot high NO then what on earth have we been discussing here? How could you think the following said yes? (or are you just winding me up?) If you want extracts from my immensely long post then here they are- "If that means the general public can't wander around Skara Brae, Stonehenge, Silbury, then that's how it is. And we are the general public. Even though some of us might like to think we're extra special and the rules don't apply to us. OF COURSE I'd like to sit in Skara Brae, who bloody wouldn't? But it's irrelevant, because the rule is no one is allowed to do that. The question is, am I more special than everyone else, do I have some special right to bend the rules that apply to everyone else for the good of the site? What's more important in the long run, the welfare of the site or me satisfying my impulse? The people looking after Silbury, Skara Brae, Stonehenge, you'd like to think they are people who have the sites' protection at heart, and they're experienced / educated people who have been hired for their expertise. So if they decide we shouldn't trample all over Silbury etc, in this case I'm willing to believe that it's quite a good decision)" Erm. The question was about Avebury. Did you read it Rhiannon? Or did you just react without reading it properly, thinking I was talking about the Skara Brae question?
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 13:13
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "Personally, I'm quite happy with the status quo, where rules aren't rigidly and blindly adhered to." Its a strange status quo for you to support. You're saying youre happy the rule is there as it serves a good purpose and nearly everyone obeys it, except you. Shouldnt you give EVERYONE your right to ignore it, in other words ditch it, rather than saying youre happy with it? I don't remember saying that I should be the only exemption to a rule. I think we established some way back that you and I hold different world views. I don't believe that rules need to be applied religiously, you seem to feel that they do. What's the point in us continuing this discussion? Our views are clearly the product of diametrically opposed philosophies, so we're not going to agree, and neither of us can prove the other "wrong" because what you regard as "right" and "wrong" depends entirely upon your philosophy.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 13:15
|
||
|
Ok then, this is what I've inferred you mean. If you don't want to clarify then how can anyone know what you're really thinking? who? = anyone who feels like it, including me. Except that I rely on everyone else not doing it, so that I can do it. Why? = because I can go on these places without damaging them. And I'm really interested in them, unlike most of the visitors. If everyone visiting applied those two answers to themselves there'd be a lot of people sitting in skara brae and climbing silbury, surely you can see that? So why aren't there? Because people love rules? No! It's because people respect the monuments themselves and they don't want them ruined. You depend on those people that "keep the rules" so you don't feel guilty, because their care for the monuments and ability to act in an unselfish, future-considering way enables you to be one of the few people who can do it so then claim you're not damaging it (much). That is totally hypocritical, surely. You hate the rules (man) but you rely on them at the same time.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 13:16
|
||
There are some hot-heads and capital letter loving individuals here aren't there? I'd need a sit down if I wasn't already sat. ;)
|
| Pages: 38 – [ Previous | 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
