MrPudding wrote: » You mean by plant a large metal cross on top of a mountain, yes? MrP
looksee wrote: » I don't think the argument about the actual object is relevant, the point is that someone chose to inflict their preference/belief/whatever on everyone else.
Peregrinus wrote: » Man-made structures are common on Irish mountains - cairns are the most commonly found, in my experience, followed by telecommunications installations of one kind or another, trig points, individual monuments, religious monuments and the odd passage grave. Crosses probably form a fairly small proportion of the total of summit structures, but of course they form part of a broader European mountaineering tradition in which crosses are common. If we have never become exercised about any other structures on mountain tops, but suddenly get excited about a cross, is it really the amenity of the areas of natural beauty that is motivating us?
Turtwig wrote: » You never shared!
expectationlost wrote: » you seem to have more information on this then the rest of us
eviltwin wrote: » I don't support vandalism, I'm just wondering if the people behind this were seeing the act in a different light. I don't agree with what they did but I believe areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures if at all possible.
jank wrote: » I have had my Mcvities
Turtwig wrote: » Mod: I) after hours charter is not a and a. Your link is pointless. ii) This is back seat moderation. Something you've been warned about before. Given the context I'm letting it slide but be advised I have no obligation to do so. To borrow from your own hyperlink that would mean your post warranted a card. iii) I do feel you have a legitimate grievance. Not the way to go about resolving it and you're here long enough to know that.So how bout Rob apologies to you? You apologies to me. We both share our biscuits and express our anger at the removal of the jelly star?
shruikan2553 wrote: » In my school we were taught this is how it is, God is real and anyone who says otherwise was wrong. Catholicism is right and this is what we believe. If we look at this we have the teaching of something while the person being taught isnt meant to question or critically examine it. If only we had a word to describe that.
recedite wrote: » That is a shame. I saw it there, a small hawthorn I think, with lots of little rags tied onto it. There is actually a thread about it, and boards gossip (which may be as truthful as gospel) seems to indicate that the culprit was a local landowner who cut it down after getting fed up with the public accessing the tree. Anyway "adopting" a small tree is not the same thing as installing a large steel structure on top of a mountain. When you install some substantial man-made symbol on top of a mountain, it is like planting a flag. It is intended to send out a message. And a flag as, they say, is like a red rag to a bull.
katydid wrote: » My apologies. I thought you were approving of it. I'm not sure if I agree that areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures where possible. I think it totally depends on the area and the structure.
looksee wrote: » Some vandals in Waterford decided for whatever reason to chop down a 'fairy tree' on the way up to Mahon Falls. Were they Christians objecting to a pagan symbol? Or were they just ignorant fools who did it because they could? Another tree was planted to replace it, and rightly so, but the original tree which was a local landmark (for the magic road) is gone. Just because somebody wanted to inflict their views on other people.
lazygal wrote: » And tearing them down wouldn't be.
Shrap wrote: » Totally. Yes. All vandalism.
lazygal wrote: » Like a poorly constructed cross on top of a mountain? Is that vandalism? Would a statue of Kim Kardashian be vandalism on top of the mountain? Or how about a giant star of David, would that be vandalism if I put one up on the mountain?
katydid wrote: » What provoked it?
katydid wrote: » Like the Christ statue overlooking Rio? No, it's not. It's private property, and while there may be planning issue, it's certainly not vandalism.
Shrap wrote: » Ah yes...that slippery slope we all know and love here in A&A. The one where liking sweetness leads to multiple packs of chocolate chip cookies; supporting women's reproductive choice leads to plummeting birth rates and enforced abortions; gay marriage leads to gender ambivalent children with no respect for the tax system; secularism leads to an immoral society bent (no pun intended) on tormenting the RCC; etc. Wanton vandalism is, as you say, "wanton" ie. deliberate and unprovoked. We don't know why the cross was toppled, but if it were because some folk had had enough of the notion of the cross symbolising Irish people, I (for one) can't blame them. And at this stage in the game, I wouldn't call it un-provoked.
katydid wrote: » Vandalism is the deliberate destruction or defacing public or private property. Whether or not it "ruins an area" is irrelevant. It is illegal. If you support vandalism in one instance, how can you condemn it in other instances?
lazygal wrote: » Is the erecting of a man made object such as a cross ever vandalism?
katydid wrote: » What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...
lazygal wrote: » Which is where, exactly? And is this wanton vandalism? Is erecting an unnatural object in an area of natural beauty not wanton vandalism?
eviltwin wrote: » I wonder do they see it as vandalism or restoring the mountain to its former beauty. Most vandalism ruins an area and leaves it in a mess, this didn't.
