It's not just a word, it's a law, from UK's Criminal Damage Act 1971: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
But whether we should change that law is probably an off-topic here. All I am saying is that we must respect the law. If we don't agree with the law, we must try to change it, and not just go about destroying each other's property.
They manage just fine. About 8-9 months ago they were used to find a couple of vandals who were destroying bus stops at night. The cops traced them from camera to camera and sent a patrol car as a welcoming party.
There are still ways around that. A small act of sabotage is not worth the enforcement for most police agencies, unless you live in a very fascist country. So a small precaution might be enough to avoid it.
Most cities have mask requirements and many cities like SF won't even followup on these types of crimes. The more cameras exist on street corners the less likely the police will get involved.
There's no "logic" at all here. All I did was point out how the other person didn't even make an argument.
Nor did you. You just appeal to some popular notion that everyone already agrees with ("treat humans like humans"). Then you suggest this is the same as the other thing, again giving no reason.
Maybe you really can give reason to someone, who abuses people, not to do it. To treat humans as humans. But you would have to delude yourself to think you already did it here.
You are making an argument here, that the other person didn't make an argument; that means you were applying logic.
Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements). You can extend that logic to say that you "can" abuse humans.
But your logic totally misses societal context. When someone says "can", they aren't talking about pure physical capability. That's why no one in their right mind will say "I can stab you".
Social norms can be accepting of such activities if you surround yourself with a like minded group.
Living within whatever social norms exist is common but progressives and activists try to break the social norm. Taboos are real and get broken everyday.. cousins date, 70 year old women and getting together with 20 year olds, there are mothers who hate their kids.
Each social rule broken can have punishments.. wearing white after labor day can get you not invited to a social event. But that doesn't mean you should imprison yourself trying to live within other people's rules. Drawing a funny face on an ad has a low punishment rate, low chance of being cast out of society vs stabbing someone randomly. You can reject some rules and follow others. It has always been your choice.
Sorry to say, you have failed to comprehend the thread.
> Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements).
Who said anything about "societal norms"?
You are just inventing things. You invent an appeal to social norms, then you invent a reply to it.
In fact, all I did was point out how no justification was even given for a claim.
I didn't make any logical response to the non-argument (which wouldn't make sense to even try), instead I made a meta-response ABOUT the fact of non-argument.
The parent comment, by context, was inferring from societal norms. You yourself now say you pointed out how there is "no justification was even given for a claim." That means you are ignoring the parent comments context, which is societal norms. The justification is implied to be societally defined normal behavior. You can ask anyone why they shouldn't steal - it would be related to societal norms / morals. But then your answer, by analogy, would be to discard those arguments.
> I didn't make any logical response to the non-argument (which wouldn't make sense to even try), instead I made a meta-response ABOUT the fact of non-argument.
The assertion that it was a non-argument is based on the rejection of its context.
Are you saying that the only reason to treat other humans well is because the law says you must?
I would say that is precisely backwards: one should treat other humans well, for a variety of reasons. We write that down in law as a shared agreement. But the law is not itself the reason -- it springs from the reasons.
Well the OP's post was based on rejecting all those "reasons" you're talking about. Those reasons can also apply to other things like not doing theft, not burning down other people's properties, etc.
I don't understand you. You're saying we can go about, say, murdering people and we are fine with that as long as we don't get caught? Is breaking social agreement acceptable if enforcement fails? If my personal ethics allows me to break the law, but enforcement fails, can I still claim to be a positive element of the society?
What I am saying is that society has agreed not to damage each other's property, has agreed to a certain principle. The society has, basically, agreed that enduring outdoor ads is acceptable, while enduring random property damage is not, as there are no exceptions for ad vandalism -- that's what I call to respect here -- agreed principles. If we don't agree with that, we must change the law. If society we live in is ripe for the change, then it should be possible. If not, we have no moral right to do property damage while leveraging all the benefits of living in that society.
Well, if we can't agree with the rule of law then what, we're back to a primitive society? I don't think homo sapiens culture is, at this stage, advanced enough to thrive in a primitive community, how attractive that may sound. In a few hundred or thousand years, perhaps?
You are fundamentally mistaken about what "the rule of law" is. The rule of law is not based on "agreement" but enforcement. Even the veneer of agreement is based on enforcement. Historically, this has taken the form of enforced religion. Today, enforced school attendance serves a similar role.
If you're saying that everyone should/must follow the law in all circumstances, that's an extreme position few people would agree with. This would mean inform on Jews to the Nazis or returning slaves to their owners under the Fugitives Slaves Act, to take an example from a democracy. That's even without considering that many laws are somewhat indeterminate, internally inconsistent or at odds with other laws.
If you're saying that there is an a priori moral presumption that laws should be followed, maybe because they represent (possibly) some sort of societal consensus, than that is a closer question, but it doesn't resolve the question of whether the legal rights of the advertisers ought to, in a moral sense, be respected.
Note though that even the US judiciary doesn't make much of a legal mandate with no penalties attached (see the last Obamacare case to reach SCOTUS).
Interesting examples. I would say that Germany at that point was a rather undemocratic society, with all the terror by the Nazis. Can we consider slave-owning society democratic if it includes slaves? This makes me wondering if the position of respecting the law as a form of social agreement is untenable in an undemocratic society. But then again, democracy is a spectrum...
Coming to your question, I don't know. When do legal rights end and moral rights begin? Something I'd really like to read more about. I remember enjoying Michael Sandel's lectures online and then reading his book. Would really like to find something in his style on this topic.
Or painting flowers, which could indeed be treated as vandalism, but that way would also attract too much public attention to the cause, which is something the higher powers would avoid as much as possible.
But whether we should change that law is probably an off-topic here. All I am saying is that we must respect the law. If we don't agree with the law, we must try to change it, and not just go about destroying each other's property.