On April 19 2012 04:49 lorkac wrote: Hypothetically--if someone bought the bodlien library in Oxford and began burning the books to cook his meals with--should we be okay with it because it's his property anyway?
Sure, because obviously Oxford didn't think the books important enough to save.
to play the hypothetical devil's advocate in this hypothetically parallel hypothetical arguement - isn't the knowledge contained within them the property of more than just whoever owns the books and library?
also, what if this were an art gallery? i remember there was a discussion about one artist who (as an exhibition) destroyed all of his posessions, including works of art he had purchased from other artists.
I don't think so. If that is the case, then we need to outlaw personal possession of works of knowledge since it being personal property gives them exclusive rights to do with it as they please.
As far as the art gallery, I can understand some outrage if he bought them up with the plan to destroy them and without the original owners knowing that, but besides that I feel the same as above.
On April 19 2012 04:49 lorkac wrote: Hypothetically--if someone bought the bodlien library in Oxford and began burning the books to cook his meals with--should we be okay with it because it's his property anyway?
Sure, because obviously Oxford didn't think the books important enough to save.
to play the hypothetical devil's advocate in this hypothetically parallel hypothetical arguement - isn't the knowledge contained within them the property of more than just whoever owns the books and library?
also, what if this were an art gallery? i remember there was a discussion about one artist who (as an exhibition) destroyed all of his posessions, including works of art he had purchased from other artists.
I don't think so. If that is the case, then we need to outlaw personal possession of works of knowledge since it being personal property gives them exclusive rights to do with it as they please.
As far as the art gallery, I can understand some outrage if he bought them up with the plan to destroy them and without the original owners knowing that, but besides that I feel the same as above.
yeah. i think i'm with you, but with reservations..
suppose someone were to destroy knowledge that would have bettered the human race? actually I remember hearing somewhere (i'm full of hearsay tonight.. don't know where it's all come from) that oil companies buy up patents for more fuel efficient engines like this and then do nothing with the patent in order to keep us reliant on them. Don't know if that's true.
this is getting off topic, I don't think religious iconography is this important, but is there a point at which something is so valuable that people shouldn't have the right to destroy it even if they legally own it? i feel like that's a more interesting debate.
I just don't see anything desecrating in those pictures in the OP. I think people choose to get offended. But really, they didn't turn the cross upside down, or draw satan symbols on it.
They used it for a very practical, and reasonable purpose. Jesus, being a carpenter, I think would actually approve.
Bottom-line, it isn't the Church's cross. The people in that house own it, so it is just two piece of wood fastened together perpendicularly. I see no reason that they can't do whatever they want with that "cross".
Anyone can buy an old church and do whatever they want with it, so why is this even a thread? just to see how many people are extremely religious? If anyone is looking for affordable housing why not buy a church and renovate it if the price is right? The people who buy the churches could burn statues of Jesus and all the crosses if they didn't want it around, who cares what old Christians think of it. It truly isn't hurting anyone..
On April 19 2012 04:49 lorkac wrote: Hypothetically--if someone bought the bodlien library in Oxford and began burning the books to cook his meals with--should we be okay with it because it's his property anyway?
A wooden cross is not a library of books: the comparison is inappropriate.
It's not about the cross or the books. People are saying we shouldn't care because it is thir property--and it's easy to say that when you don't care about the object in question. I might think crosses and churches are heretical to the practice of Christianity--but that doesn't mean I can tell Christians to toss their crosses. Likewise, we can't tell those dudes to take down their pool cue just because we don't like it. By what if it's something that isn't so neutral? I'm pro choice, a woman can do what she will with her body--but I still cringe and the idea of legal infanticide. But it's her body, it's their cross, and it's the hypothetical argument's library.
Sometimes I feel like I'm in a lecture on quantum mechanics and someone comes in and says 'hey guys, what do you think about this gravitational constant thing?!'.
It's no wonder philosophy is regarded as useless when your minds are filled with such banality.
On April 19 2012 04:49 lorkac wrote: Hypothetically--if someone bought the bodlien library in Oxford and began burning the books to cook his meals with--should we be okay with it because it's his property anyway?
Sure, because obviously Oxford didn't think the books important enough to save.
to play the hypothetical devil's advocate in this hypothetically parallel hypothetical arguement - isn't the knowledge contained within them the property of more than just whoever owns the books and library?
also, what if this were an art gallery? i remember there was a discussion about one artist who (as an exhibition) destroyed all of his posessions, including works of art he had purchased from other artists.
I don't think so. If that is the case, then we need to outlaw personal possession of works of knowledge since it being personal property gives them exclusive rights to do with it as they please.
As far as the art gallery, I can understand some outrage if he bought them up with the plan to destroy them and without the original owners knowing that, but besides that I feel the same as above.
yeah. i think i'm with you, but with reservations..
suppose someone were to destroy knowledge that would have bettered the human race? actually I remember hearing somewhere (i'm full of hearsay tonight.. don't know where it's all come from) that oil companies buy up patents for more fuel efficient engines like this and then do nothing with the patent in order to keep us reliant on them. Don't know if that's true.
this is getting off topic, I don't think religious iconography is this important, but is there a point at which something is so valuable that people shouldn't have the right to destroy it even if they legally own it? i feel like that's a more interesting debate.
If someone bought a library or an art museum an everything in it he can burn the whole thing down, it is his physical property. To solve your patent problem, intellectual property should be public information, and the private sector should deal in the physical. Then no one can destroy information (as everyone legally owns and has it) and people can do whatever they want with their shit.
I'm the one who posted the pictures of the house. The house belongs to my dad and his partner who bought it a few years ago and turned it into a home. I posted it in the atheism subreddit because I thought atheists wouldn't be offended by such a thing and think it was a cool idea. Little did I know how many Christians lurk on this subreddit. If you're offended by this...well I guess I apologise. But the simple fact is that this was done because it fits with the aesthetics of the house, not to show anyone up or stick it to the big man or anything. This church is in Australia and I guess it's just not thought of as an issue here. Pretty sure the original church goers wouldn't be too fussed either. They're Presbyterian's, it's not their bag to get riled up about such things.
I'm the one who posted the pictures of the house. The house belongs to my dad and his partner who bought it a few years ago and turned it into a home. I posted it in the atheism subreddit because I thought atheists wouldn't be offended by such a thing and think it was a cool idea. Little did I know how many Christians lurk on this subreddit. If you're offended by this...well I guess I apologise. But the simple fact is that this was done because it fits with the aesthetics of the house, not to show anyone up or stick it to the big man or anything. This church is in Australia and I guess it's just not thought of as an issue here. Pretty sure the original church goers wouldn't be too fussed either. They're Presbyterian's, it's not their bag to get riled up about such things.
All I can tell you is it's a fantastic LAN house.
did you read the thread? you're probably safe from the mob with pitchforks for now, But only if you say 50 ave-marias while walking counter-clockwise around where the baptismal font used to be. And then pass wind in the direction of mecca.
I'm the one who posted the pictures of the house. The house belongs to my dad and his partner who bought it a few years ago and turned it into a home. I posted it in the atheism subreddit because I thought atheists wouldn't be offended by such a thing and think it was a cool idea. Little did I know how many Christians lurk on this subreddit. If you're offended by this...well I guess I apologise. But the simple fact is that this was done because it fits with the aesthetics of the house, not to show anyone up or stick it to the big man or anything. This church is in Australia and I guess it's just not thought of as an issue here. Pretty sure the original church goers wouldn't be too fussed either. They're Presbyterian's, it's not their bag to get riled up about such things.
All I can tell you is it's a fantastic LAN house.
did you read the thread? you're probably safe from the mob with pitchforks for now, But only if you say 50 ave-marias while walking counter-clockwise around where the baptismal font used to be. And then pass wind in the direction of mecca.
Yeah wasn't so much talking about this thread, mainly the original Reddit post. One super crazy in particular said "Desecrate the cross, and God will lay a metastasized cancer on you". Nice chap.
Desecrate is a strong word. Personally, I lol'd pretty hard when I saw that they converted it into a pool cue holder. Pretty Smart actually, but I'm not religious at all. I just kind of feel like people are way to sensitive. Like does this really matter in the scheme of things? It's inside his own place, you didn't do it. So mind your own business.
EPT
