This is epistolary
This is epistemic
This is me
This is you
This is a debate
This is a knowledge claim
This is an argument
This is structured
This is balance
This is aligned
This is philosophical inquiry
This is a dangerous excursion into the known
This is a one act play
This is a five act play
This is play
This is what the internet turned into
I found this
A "Debate" (of sorts) about the nature and value of Graffito
Graffiti... a very interesting conundrum. On the one hand it is artistic expression, with many different niches, "styles" and targets; on the other hand, it is vandalism at it's very worst. I understand that it is one's right to express themselves freely, but our society has obligations to appease it's citizens even if that part of society is in the minority.
So if one's artistic expression is in any way hindering my ability to progress through my day, or hamper my enjoyment of my city, then the government has a right to step in and make a decision. For example if a party is playing it's music in a house, the neighbors have a right to determine whether this music is too loud for their tastes and, if so, complain to the police. If the party-goers break a bylaw with the noise level of their music, the police can warn the people, or even shut the party down and fine the individuals who are hosting the party if it is out of control.
Who could blame these neighbors for attempting to get a good night's sleep? This is an easy situation to deal with - in comparison to graffiti, as those who are at fault can be dealt with, where the graffiti "artist" is often far away when the "tag" is discovered. Many claim that this display of "art" is harmless, but as harmless goes, graffiti does nothing but, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of the citizens of my city, make a place which once was unnoticed and call it to our attention in a way that is not dissimilar than seeing a growth of mold on a peice of bread. No, I may have not noticed it before, but in no way is it enhancing my subway ride or my casual drive through the steets. This act is illegal, but unlike many other crimes that people contest to be harmless, like weed and other drugs, graffiti does affect other people and many times in a way that is negative. The case could be given to just "look away", unfortunately, this type of thinking isn't constructive, and if this mindset was how our society worked, many crimes would go unpunished. Looking away from our problems is not how we achieve our goals, for example, I'm sure that many people who are reading this post will not just "look away" from what I have written here and will voice their own opinions on the subject.
I totally agree with this freedom, but when your freedoms constrict and limit those of others, particularly the right to enjoy the very place where they live, I belive that the offenders should come to understand that what they are doing doesn't just affect them and those who appreciate what they are doing. Oppositely, they affect all of the people who happen to gaze apon this PUBLIC property. I am not Naïve enough to believe that this post will cause a Paradigm shift in one's opinion, but I hope to enlighten those "artists" who do this for a hobby, or those who are professional (If they exist). But I do hope that I have provided an opinion from the other side of the fence, and perhaps even enlighten those who thought that this was a victimless crime. It is not.
Vandalism has no place in our society. Think about the cities who have to clean up that type of thing. Besides, it all looks the same anyways.
First: Please do not use the phrase "paradigm shift" until and unless you have read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. If you have not read this book you are a buzzword cronie. Using the word buzzword is ironic.
A Witty Satire
Second of all: graffiti is not much of a conundrum. It is vandalism. No one said otherwise. The government has no "rights". No one has rights.
I agree with everything you said. We are all wrong-hearted.
Punishing crime is absurd.
No one said graffiti was harmless. I think it is naive to assume that most writers think: graffiti is art or that graffiti is harmless/a victimless crime. Most of the people that do the sort of graffiti that would people get uppity about (street bombing, clean trains) are not the type of people that are doing "art-for-art's-sake". They are out there to write their name big, and often to make people angry.
Don't try and convince people of anything, trust me, it never works, having opinions about anything is the first step toward annoying.
Not that I matter. The internet is funny.
Fuck personal freedom.
Fuck freedom other than mine.
Its about time people realise that we are slaves.
Always have been
and always will be.
to caber toss, who jumped apon me for using a term in my essay, calling it a "buzzword" and then proceeding to explain to everyone that he read a book on paradigm shifts... Congratulations! This I is an excellent contradiction! First putting another person down for using a term that he knows the meaning of, in his words "just to show off", and going on to laud himself for reading an entire book about it. Unfortunately, even though I am using the word "the" in my post, I don't think that I am obligated to read a book about it before I use it. This is incompetant. And for one so unconcerned about the welfare of others:
"Punishing crime is absurd.
I'm sure that if someone broke into your house and destroyed things of yours - no matter how much you protest otherwise - you would be pretty pissed off. For someone who enjoys the relative safety of the society in which we live, this one sided belief of inflicting pain upon it is not only imbecilic, it's hypocritical. (I hope no one tells me to read a book about that word) And on that topic, if you would like to be touchy-feely on the subject of reading, you should go read a book by Edmund Burke, one of the founding fathers of modern conservatism, to fully understand why illegal graffiti is a problem.
And to **NAME CHANGED TO PROTECT THE IDIOTIC**, who jumped apon me for using a term in my essay, calling it a "buzzword" and then proceeding to explain to everyone that he read a book on paradigm shifts... Congratulations! This I is an excellent contradiction! First putting another person downSSSHHHHZZZZASD^&%#@@hss....
Static KSSSSSHKerse to Kruschev: Captain pilot reverse caption.
for using a term that he knows the meaning of, in his words "just to show off", and going on to laud himself for reading an entire book about it. Unfortunately, even though I am using the word "the" in my post, I don't think that I am obligated to read a book about it before I use it. This is incompetant.
First of all: I did not put you down. Second of all: the term 'paradigm shift' (unlike the word "the" ) has a very specific etymological origin. If you are using it out of context, it seems like silly buzzwordery to me. Whatever though, if you want to use words that you do not know the meanings of thats entirely fine with me.
And for one so unconcerned about the welfare of others:
"Punishing crime is absurd.
I'm sure that if someone broke into your house and destroyed things of yours - no matter how much you protest otherwise - you would be pretty pissed off.
Yes I would, but I don't pretend that my anger should be enforced upon every person who I disagree with. I had no say in forming the society I live in, and I never will. Come back at me with the democratic meow meow
, its all grains of salt in eyes
Caption for world closing: "Hey little fire hydrant, you will be known as number 12!"
Fire hydrant: "Look at that big mean GRAFFITO! How lewd!"
Tax Payer #1: "I paid for the removal of that! What is to be done?"
Kerse: "Sorry guys. I'll get on that shit, yo."
For someone who enjoys the relative safety of the society in which we live, this one sided belief of inflicting pain upon it is not only imbecilic, it's hypocritical. (I hope no one tells me to read a book about that word) And on that topic, if you would like to be touchy-feely on the subject of reading, you should go read a book by Edmund Burke, one of the founding fathers of modern conservatism, to fully understand why illegal graffiti is a problem.
I've read my Burke, "guy". Conservatism of his shape is just reactionary idiocy from a well-off Englishman who was afraid of the French Revolution/radical changes that didn't take eons to occur (like the shift from Full-on monarchy to constitutional monarchy in his lovely rabidly colonialist homeland). Books teach you nothing.
I'm not cramming books down your throat, I just find it annoying to hear "buzzwords" (again with my oh-so-clever irony...), so I told you as much. I don't need to understand why graffiti is a problem. I understand fully that a lot of people (most) perceive it as a problem and I see why. I make no bones about my anti-humanist stance. I'm fully convinced that most people are poisonous sores, and as such I neither care about them, or about their property. Attack me on whatever moral or philosophical fronts you want, it doesn't and won't change the fact that I'm fully aware of what I do, and how it affects people. My hypocrisy knows no bounds. Though the fact that I tend to destroy my own work might tell you something about how much I value my own space/property/freedom. Take your naive essentialist opinions elsewhere please, you are preaching to the converted.
I agree with everything everyone has every said.
i love you
i hate you
Dear Bill, if you honestly have faith in the legal system in this country, and its moral/ethical/philosophical underpinnings, I applaud you. I've never really perfected that sort of double-belief system, reality always seems to leak in for me.
Vandalism has no place in our society.
Think about the cities who have to clean up that type of thing.
Besides, it all looks the same anyways.
I agree. Vandalism has no place in our society. I won't be calling for any pedantic sort of society smashing, but I personal would rather eat my out of this mess than allow it to eat me up from the outside in to the inside out. It billiousness and Biloxi, its like the one time when we tried to escape we realised we were already outside and the prison layer was six times thicker.
"Just when you think dumpsters are for putting things in...someone goes and puts something ON them! They spelled it all wrong! I not O! Jeez! Look at how that one guy wrote the same thing all those times, it all looks precisely the same." ((NOT satire, esq.))
The DEATH scene....
taggers tagging tags
we clever we clever
We write our names. Keep that in mind. And yo, loc, seriouso, its like, those names, they straight like chosen and shit, they like mad, MAD laden with intentionality.
Its like yo, seriously, this name *******blank*******? Its like: damn: im like *******blank******* and shit? You know how that shit straight REPRESENTS my soul, yo? Nahmeen? Like my straight buddha nature third eye type shit. Like one some one to one correspondence with reality type shit. Its like: these words? They Is real.
Cause WE is real.
Wif da realness.
FOUR ELE/\/\3nts til i DIE!!!!
The Greek word for poison
is the same
as the word
Make much of it
How much fun could a spelling error be?
Enough fun to (adam)Cost you your life.
In all seriousness, I've never been serious.
And I don't intend to be.
If you don't die, I can't help you.
This is what a picture of a black square looks like.
This Message was edited by: *.*.*.*.*zzztAHAchssssssssssh*** on 2002-04-01 22:50
More More More:
Dear Caber toss,
I have found your ramblings and insights extremely intriguing. You have accepted the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite, indeed, one who knows no bounds! Yet you still want to be taken seriously on this forum, for both the other readers and myself.
Once you admitted to such a thing, the rest of your argument meant nothing, because much like graffiti, the message may have been true, but the medium in which you got it across was very flawed.
And with you buying so deeply into the anti-patriotism that is so common in our society today, you forget that which the country you inhabit grants to you, (I know this sounds hackneyed). Many other like minded people loath the system that lets them get away with it (For many other militant countries in other parts of the world do not have this problem). As an admitted hypocrite, these societies would condemn you possibly to death. This type of reasoning, "So I'm a hypocrite, what are you going to do about it?" is extremely laughable... I'm not going to do anything.
Because if you have a job which you know is wrong, without any notion otherwise you will eventually cease to do it, based on your own human instincts. This is why people try to convince themselves that what they are doing is right, from crooked dictators down to theives. And if I am preaching to the converted and you agree with me, I have already accomplished what I was trying to do, which is unearth the fundamental Hypocrisy in these actions, so that you can veiw it yourselves. You have admitted being wrong.
The thing that intrigues me is, is that you still try to deconstruct my argument, but you are without a leg to stand on now that your own credability has disappeared. Unfortunately, by admitting this fault that I have been trying to expose to these other people, you have now branded them as hypocrites as well. This is where the heart of the argument lies, no one trusts the village idiot, for when you play the part of the fool, only fools will believe what you say.
Vandalism has no place in our society. Think about the cities who have to clean up that type of thing. Besides, it all looks the same anyways.
Everything is self-inflation
This post has been:
Wow. I'm destroyed by your succinct analysis.
- 1. Edited by censors.
3. Posted by editors.
- 4. Edited by posters.
- 5. Postered by senators.
"If you were elsewhere you'd be dead! So love where you are!"
Here's my attempt to defeat you, though why I bother after such an irrefutable offensive on your part is beyond my ken...forces other than my own intention drive me.
Its the God in me.
Here we go.....
Satchmo: I have found your ramblings and insights extremely intriguing.
Ms. Cab: There most certainly were no insights to be found, though ramblings (in the sense of aimless wanderings there were aplenty. Im disappointed that I have intrigued you, my intent was to befriend you, and possibly to seduce you, via the "information superhighway" (a less tired analogy?)
St. Croix: You have accepted the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite, indeed, one who knows no bounds!
Bertrand Russell: I've accepted nothing. In typical hypocritical fashion, I rescind my admission, and in fact, oppose it! I am the diametrical opposite of a hypocrite, I'm like you, dearest Bill, someone with beliefs firm enough to chop wood, to poke behinds, even to break bottles over backs and beyond. All I ever knew was a boundary, the one that encased me and the one that I noticed over my shoulder at night.
Ehud: Yet you still want to be taken seriously on this forum, for both the other readers and myself.Ad Hominem: In all seriousness, the thing I seriously do not want to be taken as (or with) is seriously. Forthwith, for wits I'm not serious. If I were a serious person do you think I would be wasting my serious time seriously trying to be serious in all seriousness serially certifying my opposition to a concept that any serious person would seriously oppose? I seriously doubt that. In fact, I would wager that most serious people would seriously suspect my suspect suspicions as suspiciously unserious, if you want my serious measured opinion, which you don't, and can't have even if you did want it.
Eugenic: Once you admitted to such a thing, the rest of your argument meant nothing, because much like graffiti, the message may have been true, but the medium in which you got it across was very flawed.
Viceroy Fizzlebottom: My admissions are, admittedly, little to be admired. In fact, like the rest of my "argument" I would say that the admissions admitted nothing. Above and beyond that, I would say that the whole argument (as such) meant "Nothing". The argument itself was a non-entity, in that there was no argument,as we have (admittedly) seriously established with seriousness above (and even further, above). If we both agree that all that I've been "up" to is some ramblings (which we haven't yet agreed upon, but I eagerly await your answer), then we can certainly (with a priori, indubitable, even incorrigible certainty) agree that 'ramblings' admit no serious argument. If not, sir, I shall brook no rebuttal and pistols at dawn shall be the least likely response. The most likely (the first order probability shell likelihood scale) will involve me deferring to your deferential differential differing opinion and agreeing to agree on our disagreement, re: agreement.
Crandolph Stevenson: And with you buying so deeply into the anti-patriotism that is so common in our society today, you forget that which the country you inhabit grants to you, (I know this sounds hackneyed).
Le Corbusier: Admittedly (my admission will follow) I have a bad memory, but I tend to be good at remembering monetary transactions. If I remember correctly, I didn't buy any anti-patriotic (see: Dukes of Hazzard-esque) memorabilia recently. I think on this point you have gravely misunderstood me, if mis(under)standing is in any sense possible in this "unlikely dialogue" (citational reference to Searle-Derrida-Austin debates? Hardly, I'm a thief too.) You have, I think (ergo..minutiae) mis-taken my point to be anti-Canada. It is not. My point (if I can be allowed by this great country to have one, if I dare broach such a topic, if I dare impose upon the will of others, doubtless more valuable than myself, if I had one, which I haven't lost) is that the "country" as such is not a 'real' object of analysis anymore than the constructed self is. What is Canada? Why am I obeying? I'm not anti-Canada? I'm ?-Canada. What precisely is this object I defy. All I know is whats I sees, and I sure as Hull (Quebec) ain't never seen no Canada's! If "Canada" is a brutally enforced law that I disagree with then certainly (with certitude, see above) I am anti-Canada. But, I think that such a facile (surface level, facial, uni-faceted) construction of 'Canada" is both dangerous, and sexually frustrating. Hack-kneed like clumsy lumberjacks yo.
Billy: Many other like minded people loath the system that lets them get away with it (For many other militant countries in other parts of the world do not have this problem). As an admitted hypocrite, these societies would condemn you possibly to death.
Cabin Fever: (honesty?) Yes, you are right. I loath a 'system' not specific incidents, right. Because there is a 'system' to loath. Admittedly, hypocritically (even) these other societies would condemn me to death. I'm sure glad I live in the good ol' C A of Nada. Shit is hot like coals on your eyelidz. Kid.
Burger Thyme: This type of reasoning, "So I'm a hypocrite, what are you going to do about it?" is extremely laughable...
Typography: Hypocrisy is now a type of reason. Woe betide the ill gotten gains that have hacked at the knees of reason until hypocrisy was admitted into its previously sacrosanct doors. Whats next? Relativism! DEADLY LIKE WU TANG FEATURING BIONICK BEE MURDERS. It is laugahble, even extremely. So much so, that I extremely laughed in my extreme extremities, with all due laughability and porous skin contact. I laughed til my belly ached, and then I reasoned my way out of it. (my belly, not the ache.)
Billy sez ***ZZZZT**** sez: I'm not going to do anything
*****BLACKOUTZZZTSJSS**** sez: I'm not going to do anything.
Bill-bo= No bracks.
Because if you have a job (I do have a job, a servile type job, poisoning pensioners)which you know is wrong (wrong write rong right rongwrong (tzara!) you and your constructed oppositions: is it wrong to steal to feed a family...etc. floating man on plank genius vs invalid who dies, we all die death becomes you, mud raker murder acher), without any notion (notion?) otherwise you will eventually cease to do it, based on your own human instincts (what does this sentence mean exactly bill, some clarification, humans are a constructed object, what makes us human? nothing, there are no humans, just different people, i have no instincts other than to like milli vanilli rekkidz.) This is why people try to convince themselves that what they are doing is right (We do? Did you read that quote from Mary Worth that said "no one thinks they are evil?" Shit is hot, we all 'rationalize' eh? in these nice diametric toims? WEll i don't buy it sir, like i bought the anti patriotism. I dont buy it fer a second. In fact, I'd say that right and wrong somehow dont play much of a role in most people's live (HERZ!)), from crooked dictators down (dictators are ranked above thieves, interesting hierarchical construction, im "feeling it" like escobar candy) to theives (thieves). And if I am preaching to the converted and you agree with me (i think the hypocrisy of all my statements above made you ignore these lower remarks, you might have forgotten to ignore them, so I'll remind me and you, sorry, go on, i keep interrupting interregnum), I have already accomplished what I was trying to do (word! accomplishments are the second step towards not being sad, the first one is also accomplishments, go figure!), which is unearth (check the metaphor kids: dont sleep on plate tectonics and the idea of an unmasking critique, fools is like ostriches (sand head thing is a myth propagated by cartoons) in that they got long necks to crane) the fundamental (fundamental: as in foundational, as in ground to be built upon, continuing the unearthing metaphor of above) Hypocrisy (with a captain H, salient! How much you 'unearthed' is interesting to ponder, as these unearthings are, admittedly, in the public sphere of admissions, have been and will be. seriously.) in these actions (what actions? what are we talking about again?) , so that you can veiw (view, i do that one a lot too, editors can be your best friends, or your worst any me's, another mary worth-esque cliche, without the accent)it yourselves. You have admitted being wrong (a strong admission to someone like me (you?) who doesnt place much stock (or bond) in the opposition wright/left, i mean(t) right/rong (gong show)). The thing that intrigues (again with the intrigue, pulling in spy imagery, as if you are cloak and daguerrotyping me and sizing me up to size with your incisors/incisive wit(h)) me is, is that you still try (try: as in attempt, but to no end, as in: fail, as in: have been beeten (beeten? beaten? beatnicked) by your decisive incisivity) to deconstruct (terminological meltdown, i hadnt realized you were familiar with deconstruction, thus exploding my whole worldview, and shattering whatever hopes i had of 'deconstructing' you through mere chicanery, i concede my complete and utter (admittedly serious) seriously admitted defeat) my argument (a valient, nay a steadfast! argument she was too, female gender, domination hierarchies, longitude, latitude), but you are without a leg (legless, unlike the ostrich who has seemingly returned to beat me over the neck with its own seriously admitted admissions of seriousness (in the form of rigourous argumentation), in essence (fundamentally) i have been defeated, woe begone misery! ALACK!)to stand on now (within time, as if this debate is and will be occurrrring, more citational plagiarism, referentiality)that your own credability (credibility: which i have lost, and never had, and never wanted. all i wanted was to (admittedly) be taken seriously by a serious community based upon seriousness, in all fairness, civility, and seriousness, this is what i seriously wanted, but now that i have been de-leg-ulated, this serious wish has been seriously (permanently) endangered) has disappeared (as in was here but now is gone. defeat at this point is utter). Unfortunately (without the aid of fortune/luck/chance: random events, which occur, again, over time and in time and through time), by admitting this fault that I have been trying to expose to these other people, you have now branded them as hypocrites as well (i have branded, like cattle, these serious ostriches as hypocrites, thus trebling, even multiplying to infinite my guilt, and my self loathing)
with our blocks of text we destroyed what little life was left.
"This is where the heart of the argument lies, no one trusts the village idiot, for when you play the part of the fool, only fools will believe what you say. "
Motherfucking words to live by, god. AgeoldTruthsSpoken
by wisdowm speakers
lateeftroofspeekcoming out your windows
This Message was edited by: coincidentally on 2002-04-02 00:41
This Message was edited by: the first time on 2002-04-02 00:42
This Message was edited by: i saw you on 2002-04-02 00:43
This Message was edited by: is also the on 2002-04-02 00:44
This Message was edited by: first time i on 2002-04-02 00:45
This Message was edited by: fell in love on 2002-04-02 00:46
This Message was edited by: with you. on 2002-04-02 00:47
This Message was edited by: If we hadn't on 2002-04-02 00:48
This Message was edited by: read that on 2002-04-02 00:49
This Message was edited by: sign on 2002-04-02 00:50
This Message was edited by: post... on 2002-04-02 00:51
This Message was edited by: what might have on 2002-04-02 00:52
This Message was edited by: happened? on 2002-04-02 00:53
This Message was edited by: Everything on 2002-04-02 00:54
This Message was edited by: shifts and on 2002-04-02 00:55
This Message was edited by: crumbles on 2002-04-02 00:56
This Message was edited by: but remember who on 2002-04-02 00:57
This Message was edited by: the bad (non) on 2002-04-02 00:58
This Message was edited by: poet is. on 2002-04-02 00:59
This Message was edited by: Me. You. on 2002-04-02 00:60
This Message was edited by: ((Physics)) on 2002-04-02 00:61
This Message was edited by: Editing a on 2002-04-02 00:62
This Message was edited by: collection on 2002-04-02 00:63
This Message was edited by: of short stories on 2002-04-02 00:64
This Message was edited by: based loosely on 2002-04-02 00:65
This Message was edited by: around on 2002-04-02 00:66
This Message was edited by: the theme on 2002-04-02 00:67
This Message was edited by: "Mathematics" on 2002-04-02 00:46
1: Thank you. I'm sorry if I came off a little harsh. This is all a joke, and I don't mind graff at all, in fact, I like it a whole lot better than advertisements. No offence meant to you or the other members of this site, but I just wanted to have a good old fashioned argument. And I did not understand your train of thought during the last post that you made, perhaps you could clarify it for a dumb beast such as myself.
Perhaps it's just me, or perhaps the post was not supposed to make any sense(?)
Not Bill Sanston
This Message was edited by: Vandalism_sucks on 2002-04-02 00:24
2: Kudos to all who posted, I hope you take this with a good laugh. Hope you don't mind. This is (possibly) the last double-cross to occur in this post. unless of course you are actually a very skillful conformist, or an extremely skillful non-conformist who only wants me to believe the former. Whatever, my brain is tired, as it has been calling out for sleep for a while now. An excellent non-debate if I do say so myself.
Not Bill Sanston
This Message was edited by: Vandalism_Sucks on 2002-04-02 00:29
Eschatological Meltdown Murder-core
Bill, you really are the bee's knees.
It's nice to know that even someone as rigid and deterministic as yourself can be chastened by a good old-fashioned non-argument non-discourse.
Now go get your fucking shinebox!
This all took place.