Quote:
Originally posted by mlandman
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!
[snip]
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
|
Few more problems here:
1) You can't tell people to go kill someone. That's against the law. You'd be the fucking idiot for doing so, in a legal sense.
2) Were I to deface you property in this case, it (a) may be legal for me to do so (IANAL), and I'd probably have legal justifiable right to do so, (b) if not, I'd be 'morally' right in doing so, even if I were 'legally' an idiot for doing so, (c) in a self-preservation sense, I'd be a fucking idiot if I didn't deface it.
You can be right and wrong at the same time. You can be morally right in what you're doing, but legally a fucking moron for doing so. That is to say, if someone raped and murdered my (insert someone close here), I could morally reason that I have a right to kill them. However, in doing so, it may be legally fucking idiotic for me to do so.
Understand the difference?
On a personal level, you can sympathize with the person who destroys the art piece, but on a legal level, and perhaps on a global public relations level, it was fucking idiotic.
Layers upon layers.
Quzah.