Off with his Thumb!

Kharn said:
Wooz said:
nobody's fighting the Big Bad Government
Yes. Are you? Not counting the violent war waged against the policy, how much has graffiti done to change Poland?

Wooz said:
nobody's fighting the Big Bad Government

Changed? Nothing much. The hippodrome wall in Warsaw, maybe. It's hardly what you'd call a national reform project.

Kharn said:
However, considering the small fraction of people talented and interested in the visual arts and the even smaller number sent there by graffiti, "a friend of a friend"-examples non-withstanding, I hardly think this is a relevant factor

And how exactly would you know this is a small fraction of people?

That means EVERYONE is paying just so graffiti-artists can keep their status intact. Does that sound fair?

Hold on. EVERYONE is paying just so some mobile phone network has its ad on a train in the first place. Yes, the ads are paid for, obviously. The only thing amiss here is that the Polish rail's material condition hasn't changed since, oh, ten years? That huge corruption scandals erupt every month about just about every state-run institution?
You have a point, it'd be unfair if the train companies would place non-intrusive ads, and large sums of money would go into cleaning the trains and renovating them.

But the large sums go elsewhere.

Ashmo said:
You don't own the trains. You don't pay for ownership of the trains. You pay a fee to use the services the train company provides, and usually using the trains as your canvas is not part of the services they provide.

Indeed, you pay a fee to ride a train to work/study in normal conditions. You don't pay to squeeze into a demolished wreck of a train that hasn't been renovated for more than five years, that has ads sticked onto every surface.

The way I see it, graffiti artists are rather making a service to society than "victimizing" train-riding people, by replacing the stupid ads with something more interesting. People that paint on trains usually don't scribble incoherently, as they tend to be older writers with the actual guts to break into a train yard.

The vast majority of illegal "artists" tends to deface about anything and everything they can get their hands on. And the vast majority of them has no artistical talent or can't be arsed to actually PAINT something and just leaves a stupid "tag" or scribble

Oh, so that makes it OK to treat them as a bunch of rampaging hools destroying shop windows, does it?
 
Wooz said:
Changed? Nothing much. The hippodrome wall in Warsaw, maybe. It's hardly what you'd call a national reform project.

Which, from a political viewpoint, makes the whole movement quite irrelevant. It needs some kind of raison d'etre if it's going to excuse the damage it's doing.

Wooz said:
And how exactly would you know this is a small fraction of people?

People who not only have the talent but do something with it do not make for a relevant part of Poland's national GDP. Prove me wrong.

I'm curious as to how many architects started out as graffiti artists, too

Wooz said:
Hold on. EVERYONE is paying just so some mobile phone network has its ad on a train in the first place. Yes, the ads are paid for, obviously. The only thing amiss here is that the Polish rail's material condition hasn't changed since, oh, ten years? That huge corruption scandals erupt every month about just about every state-run institution?
You have a point, it'd be unfair if the train companies would place non-intrusive ads, and large sums of money would go into cleaning the trains and renovating them.

But the large sums go elsewhere.

So corruption is the problem. Are you solving it? I'm guessing no. You're just making the problem worse by stealing from the rich guys, which in turn causes them to steal even more from the passengers. Yes, this is the anti-Robin Hood argument, but at least Robin Hood was giving to the poor people.

Who cares if the ads are intrusive? As long as they make the trip cheaper. TV ads are intrusive too, but they significantly lower my cable bill, so I'm not complaining.

And people aren't paying for the ads to be placed. That's an odd statement.

Wooz said:
Indeed, you pay a fee to ride a train to work/study in normal conditions. You don't pay to squeeze into a demolished wreck of a train that hasn't been renovated for more than five years, that has ads sticked onto every surface.

The way I see it, graffiti artists are rather making a service to society than "victimizing" train-riding people, by replacing the stupid ads with something more interesting. People that paint on trains usually don't scribble incoherently, as they tend to be older writers with the actual guts to break into a train yard.

It is not your right to decide whether or not you're providing people with a service. If there's a large poll calling for the defacement of trains, go ahead, but until then you have no right to declare that you're providing a public service just because you think you are.

Wooz said:
Oh, so that makes it OK to treat them as a bunch of rampaging hools destroying shop windows, does it?

No. Conversely, the treatment of graffiti artists doesn't make graffiti ok. See? Blade cuts both ways, don't use bogus arguments like those.
 
Oh I get it...no one gives a shit about kids being beaten, but GOD DAMN THEM if they dare paint on any trains!

THINK OF THE TRAINS PEOPLE PLEASE!

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
The_Vault_Dweller said:
As evidence neither of my parents ever hit me and were lenient to the extreme. Growing up and to this day however I have never done drugs, committed a crime, disrespected them, or failed to help them when they need it. I guess I just learned by parental example.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
No one belives you, no one, but I know that you weren't punished to a large extent, but I think that you were, just a bit, to learn from your mistakes. And the disrespect thing is part of growing up, and evolution, say, a man can never fly, it just isn't possible... :)





It's funny to see, when a grown child is punished and the change in the parents eyes, when they realise that they might have gone too far and are a little afraid of the response form the child.(I don't mean that they beat him, but like a hit in the face kind of thing, when the child is bigger than the parent.)
 
The_Vault_Dweller said:
Oh I get it...no one gives a shit about kids being beaten, but GOD DAMN THEM if they dare paint on any trains!

THINK OF THE TRAINS PEOPLE PLEASE!

I already mentioned these things need to be viewed seperately.

Severity of punishment has never excused a crime. That would be ridiculous.
 
Bwah, children are egoistic, anti-social assholes. You can't expect them to grow up to become social citizens of a somewhat altruistic state on their own.

However, I do agree that mutilation or severe injury (physical or psychological) is way off limits, but it doesn't take a genious to see these actions would be a tad bit incompatible with the views you're supposed to teach your children.

Did your uncle touch your pee-pee when you were a wee lad or why the sudden outbreak of "ZOMG back to the original topic pls"?
 
1013bn.gif
 
Your point being?

Welcome to capitalism. I don't like it either, but there's no easy way out (other than to go snorkeling in an acid tank, shave your internal organs or wear barbed wire as a tie).
 
Ashmo said:
Your point being?

Welcome to capitalism. I don't like it either, but there's no easy way out (other than to go snorkeling in an acid tank, shave your internal organs or wear barbed wire as a tie).
My point was that it was a good picture. Basically, most adverts are fucking ugly. And when people start to complain about all the graffiti, they should start complaining about all the adverts and try to fix that.

That said, this doesn't, obviously, give graffiti artists to vandalise any property.
 
Sander said:
My point was that it was a good picture. Basically, most adverts are fucking ugly. And when people start to complain about all the graffiti, they should start complaining about all the adverts and try to fix that.

That's funny coming from a Dutch person. We have many anti-defacement laws which prevent a lot of ads from popping up on the walls in older cities and even in ugly cities like Rotterdam. There's no ads in trains, no ads in subways, barely any ads in buses and trams.

The hell you complaining about?

And remember; every advertisment means less tax for you. Somehow the freckly of eyesore induced by ads can be born with that in mind. Whereas graffiti means more tax for you.
 
Kharn said:
That's funny coming from a Dutch person. We have many anti-defacement laws which prevent a lot of ads from popping up on the walls in older cities and even in ugly cities like Rotterdam. There's no ads in trains, no ads in subways, barely any ads in buses and trams.

The hell you complaining about?

And remember; every advertisment means less tax for you. Somehow the freckly of eyesore induced by ads can be born with that in mind. Whereas graffiti means more tax for you.
I'm complaining about the ugliness of them, not the existence, Kharn. I have no problem with ads existing because I know why they exist, but I do think they could be a lot better and less ugly.
 
In other words, ads would be acceptable if they all featured hot naked lesbian chicks?
 
Graz'zt said:
In other words, ads would be acceptable if they all featured hot naked lesbian chicks?

Methinks this is more-or-less a universal philosophy, but it is filed under Utopia.
 
Even if you support corporal punishsment, cutting off the thumbs is insane. Unlike removing other individual fingers, cutting off thumbs creates cripples.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with caning people.
 
O i dunno.....ship em off to Iraq......that will stop them from spay painting a wall and help them grow up really quickly. :twisted: Cutting off thumbs is a little to "middle east" have you ever seen the punishment videos, they cut off hands, mutilate genitalia amongst other things; All the while jacking off to jewish porn.

Lets not join the tribal mutilation festivities........at least not for Tagging a wall.
 
Back
Top