|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Trespass on SSSI sites |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
goffik 3926 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 16:04
|
|
Mustard wrote: Whereas your comparison to deliberate vandalism was strictly like-for-like? ;) What - as in "it is exactly what we're talking about"? Yes. But don't worry cos I know the way this works. Laters. G x |
|
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 16:07
|
|
goffik wrote: Mustard wrote: Whereas your comparison to deliberate vandalism was strictly like-for-like? ;) What - as in "it is exactly what we're talking about"? Yes. But don't worry cos I know the way this works. Laters. G x I wasn't aware that anyone was advocating carving swastikas into ancient monuments on this thread. But hey.... obviously it's ok for you to make ludicrous comparisons, but not for anyone else. |
|
|
goffik 3926 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 16:10
|
|
Mustard wrote: But hey.... obviously it's ok for you to make ludicrous comparisons, but not for anyone else. I'm sure you're not that dim. I knew I'd regret replying to you. Lol. G x |
|
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 16:17
|
|
goffik wrote: Mustard wrote: But hey.... obviously it's ok for you to make ludicrous comparisons, but not for anyone else. I'm sure you're not that dim. I knew I'd regret replying to you. Lol. G x You've made a comparison between non-harmful, unauthorised access, and people carving swastikas into scheduled monuments. Can you explain how the two things are related please? You're drawing a specious connection between two totally different things in an attempt to discredit a position without actually engaging in polite, reasonable and rational debate. If you have a point to make, why not do so through civil discussion, rather than making a trite, drive-by, soundbite posting? Seriously.... the tone of this forum could do with raising. It seems that as soon as anyone fails to tow the party line, it's open season for sarcasm and sneering. It's ugly and ignorant, and it means you're going to end up preaching to an empty room. |
|
|
goffik 3926 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 16:24
|
|
Oh, I'm polite enough. The comparison was to do with people thinking that what they do is ok even though others may disagree, but they do it anyway - not the level of damage. Here's yer empty room. :) G x |
|
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 16:37
|
|
goffik wrote: The comparison was to do with people thinking that what they do is ok even though others may disagree, but they do it anyway - not the level of damage. But we all do that. We all make decisions daily to do things that others may or may not disagree with. If you're suggesting that we should always yield our individual conscience to criminal or civil law, then that's a philosophical position - not a rational absolute. If we accept the law as the final arbiter or right and wrong, then our civil rights would still be stuck in the middle ages. Or are you saying it's OK to break the law under specific circumstances? In which instance, you're accepting the principle that it is up to the individual to decide when they feel that the law should be ignored. Every single one of us makes ethical decisions every day that others may or may not agree with. Surely the sensible measure of whether those decisions are socially acceptable is whether they result in any adverse and disproportionate effect upon others? Apply that measure, and climbing Silbury Hill becomes a no-go, because it's obvious how that behaviour could quickly snowball into an untenable normalisation of such behaviour. It also clearly rules out carving swastikas into stones. Quietly visiting a site that's normally off-limits, out of hours, with nobody the wiser... treading lightly and leaving no trace? The only argument against that is dogmatic adherence to rules and regulations. I don't philosophically agree with that position. If you do, that's your prerogative and I respect your position. It would be nice if you (and others) could do the same, respectfully disagreeing with people who while they hold different opinions, share the same values of preservation and conservation of our ancient monuments. You disagree with me... that's fine. Just respect the fact that while my views may be different to yours, they're also well-considered, well-intentioned and sincerely held. |
|
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 16:58
|
|
Mustard, i've really enjoyed reading your posts on this thread. An absolute pleasure. |
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 17:11
|
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Mustard, i've really enjoyed reading your posts on this thread. An absolute pleasure. Ditto. |
|
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 17:14
|
|
goffik wrote: Oh, I'm polite enough. The comparison was to do with people thinking that what they do is ok even though others may disagree, but they do it anyway - not the level of damage. Here's yer empty room. :) G x I sat on a recumbent stele in Luxor temple once – it was a hot day (a very hot day) and there was nowhere to sit except on the ground. I’d been there for all of 5 seconds when a site guide came over and angrily shooed me off, telling me I was being disrespectful. I guess I was, but it hadn’t occurred to me at the time. I pointed with my foot at something on the ground in a flea market in Kyoto once – only to be met with a glare of disapproval from the owner of the patch (learnt later that pointing with your foot at something in Japan is an absolute no-no). Ditto blowing your nose there in public, or leaving your chopsticks in a bowl of rice (that’s only done for rice offerings to the dead). My point is that they’re all harmless acts in themselves but can, and do, cause tremendous offence. So, before another room empties out in discord what’s the answer to this one (if there is an answer). Think it was Evergreen Dazed who said it’s all about common sense (or words to that effect - and apologies if it wasn’t ED) and that really is it isn’t... well nearly it... knowing what the customs and concerns are is also more than a little important and that means getting to know what they are and educating others about them. I hate unwavering dogma and the blindness that goes with it to other people's points of view. Sometimes rules do have to be broken and Mustard is absolutely right to say, “They [the Suffragettes] should have stuck to the rules like everyone else instead of thinking they were special ;-)...” Absolutely, ditto those that have challenged, and continue to challenge, unfairness and stupidity at all levels and in all countries. I think we’re all pretty much agreed that climbing Silbury is not on, so maybe it’s time for a bit of action on that front – emails to EH asking them to up the signage (in several different languages as someone has suggested) would be a start perhaps.
|
|
|
marmite 33 posts |
Sep 05, 2012, 17:36
|
|
Littlestone wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Mustard, i've really enjoyed reading your posts on this thread. An absolute pleasure. Ditto. Ditto x 2 |
| Pages: 38 – [ Previous | 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 22 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
