Quote:
|
You don't have the right to destroy someone's property just because you don't like what it looks like. If you painted your house teal, and I hated teal, it wouldn't give me the right to burn your house down. Nor would it give me the right to repaint it.
|
But what if I painted a big sign on the outside of my house saying: Quzah lives at (your-address-here) -- please murder his children and poison his dog. While I do agree (and made this point earlier) that it doesn't grant you LEGAL RIGHTS to do anything you please (including defacing the sign) -- would you be considered a FUCKING IDIOT if you painted over your address?
CLEARLY NOT.
What if the art exhibit said the same thing? Legal rights granted to you? No... but are you a FUCKING IDIOT if you defaced it? No way, of course not!
If you still disagree, then you're saying you would be a fucking idiot to deface that exhibit, and that the only acceptable recourse would be to go through months of legal wrangling to sue him to take it down, if he objected to your polite request.
Point is, there ARE shades of grey here. Once you acknowledge that, then what's the clear boundary between 'NOT a fucking idiot' and 'fucking idiot'?
I'm done with this argument. In my opinion, he didn't have the legal right to do what he did. Doesn't make him a 'fucking idiot'.
-m