What would do to these pricks if you were the judge passing sentence?

>>2210251

jimmies rustled. that had to be at least a thousand years old.

>>2210251
Why the fuck would anyone do that? Also this could make for an interesting discussion. Are there any laws in place that makes stuff like this illegal? Does it fall under the same category as vandalism?

I mean it's just a rock but... it was a piece of history, the layers of erosion and everything... ;_;

>>2210290
Don't remember when but it was in recent years where some 'artist' painted some shitty thing in national parks and she did not give a single shit.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/10/22/one-person-decided-make-art-national-parks-and-post-it-all-over-social-media

If it was washable and non toxic than I wouldn't give much of a shit but she was pretty vile about being caught. It's not toppling over some protected landmark but shit, stick to paper and your own goddamn rocks.

File: image.jpg (56KB, 794x440px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 794x440px

>>2210286
millions

>>2210290
Just like those idiots that knocked over one of the goblins they did 'fuh saftee!
As if they were in authority to decide what should or shouldn't stand in a public park.

>>2210309
Did anybody archive her tumblr before she shut it down? I love pointing out horrible female behavior in defense of feminism to my feminist women relatives.

I don't get it. Why would anyone care that they toppled over a rock. People do worse to nature every day.

>>2210317
>>2210323
I was around when it first happened and only saw her Facebook. All I remember was her talking about how it was just rocks and wasn't a big deal, go fuck yourselves, etc. I don't recall anything about feminism but maybe that was later after she actually realized she was in trouble(when it first came out it was over one national park, not so many). It seems like if she did go the feminism route it wasnt in the beginning, but only to later try and desperately twist things once she realized she was in a lot of trouble.

File: image.jpg (60KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 480x270px

>>2210333
>I don't get it.

>>2210338
That's exactly what I love pointing out, the hypocrisy of it.

>>2210333
Believe or not people would like to preserve millions, thousands and hundreds of year old things. They survived this long. It'd be fine if it toppled over naturally but to go out of your way to not only deface it, but also brag and upload it to the internet for others to see is even worse. They want people to see what they have done.

>>2210341
She's a cunt. I feel bad for the people who genuinely care about what they believe instead of being brainwashed into this faux-social justice and its nothing but an excuse to remain a terrible person and push blame off of themselves.

Even in the beginning if she could just own up to that she fucked up and had any real realization what she did was wrong I could get behind it but no. She was a bitch all the way through and apparently only deleted fucking everything once she was rightfully faced with legal action. She wanted recognition and she got it.

So basically I should care because it's being done for no reason by some random asshole? Worse is done everyday by companies in the name of profits. Society was built on fucking up nature.

>>2210343
Well, the bunch that pushed over the Duckbill didn't film themselves doing this or brag about it later. They probably knew better because of those two mormons that knocked over a goblin.

A reporter happened to be filming the coastline with a drone and caught them in the act of pushing it over. Sad thing is the Duckbill was actually still quite stable because these douchebags had to really work at pushing it over. They couldn't just tip over the edge. They had to get it rocking back and forth enough to cause the softer base to collapse. I wish it had backfired on them and rocked back on the collapse and crushed a few of the fuckers. Ironic justice is always the best.

>>2210333
I kind of agree that it's easy to make an outrage of this. But I'm still bothered by the attitude and crowd mentality bullshit at play. How old were these people?

>>2210353
Almost everything that we do has both pros and cons, and the pros should outweight the cons (views certainly differ).

File: image.jpg (77KB, 600x754px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x754px

>>2210353

>>2210353
>You shouldn't care about this because there are starving African children
You could compare anything to something worse.
>My kid gets beaten but he still gets fed unlike those Africans
>My neighbor mostly starves his dog, beats it, leaves it chained up all day but that's fine because people in other countries torture dogs and eat them
>Someone set our state park on fire but don't bother them, because these big meanie companies demolish things all the time

One shitty person getting in trouble for doing a shitty thing like this will make others, even if little, rethink it. Or have them realize that they can't just do this shit without backlash, legal or not.

>>2210375
None of your examples are the same scenario.

Tipping over a rock hurts nobody. Possibly a few bugs were crushed or a nest disturbed at worst.

These kids are obviously retarded for doing this and bragging about it, but ultimately it doesn't matter. This rock could have been toppled the next day by a deer scratching itself on it and it would have made the same impact on the ecosystem: NONE.

>>2210382
That rock could have been something of a sight, even if for a few people. It stands out.

>>2210388
Fuggedaboutit. You're conversing with a high functioning sociopath: no empathy but can use internet and words. Trying to convince him of value beyond the mere material is like trying to explain Van Gogh's Starry Night to a blind person.

>>2210382
there is an intrinsic recreational value in accessible natural oddities. In this instance the site was devalued because fat people tore one such attraction down.

I don't see anyone citing ecological destruction as the problem, so I presume you are autistic if that was the only thing you decided to consider. It could have fallen 50 years from now and daily visitors from now till then could have gotten pleasure from viewing and photography something outside of their daily environmental experience. It could have encouraged them to visit other sites or pursue environmental career paths, in which case it very certainly could have had ecological impacts.
That's not to say that destroying it won't butthurt people enough to pursue similar things, it's ethereal cause and effect

https://youtube.com/watch?v=OmlInq5vKac

this guy knocking over trees is better!

>>2210251
I'm not claiming their behaviour is justified, but to be honest, it's not even a matter of living beings here. Making humans suffer for the sake of a fucking rock formation is going overboard.

Still a fucking shame, though.

File: 1468980682355.gif (48KB, 320x331px)

48KB, 320x331px

>>2210614
>but to be honest, it's not even a matter of living beings here.
Except, it is. People go to the park to appreciate their natural beauty, which is the inheritance of all humans.
we can't have the standard that people can do as they please because "it's just rocks".
The result could conceivably be that over time, very little of the scenery is preserved in a state relatively devoid of any evidence of human presence.
There's value for all of humanity, artistic and ecological, to having some spaces that at least appear untouched in so far as reasonably possible.

>>2210251
Honestly I'm the most hardcore environmentalist you'll find but I don't give a fuck if some kids toppled a bunch of rocks. They should get no punishment whatsoever, imo.

If ancient man toppled these rocks, or an eagle or some shit, what would you have done to them? Anything? When does it stop being natural?

It boggles my mind how the majority of this board is 10000% okay with any kind of hunting, especially killing innocent deer, but gets irate over some stones being felled. Just, what the fuck? It's beyond comprehension.

>>2211216
I said it was a shame, didn't I? But basically, humans can suffer, rock can't. Punishing humans (especially the supposedly cruel and unusual punishment that OP seems to have in mind) because they toppled a rock isn't reasonable.

Also this: >>2211369
>When does it stop being natural?

>>2210309
Such an evil woman. Trashes nature and calls it art. Worst than those assholes that make trash and then calling it art too.

>>2211389
But not quite as bad, we can all agree, as those who destroy benign, unwitting animals for no reason and call it "culture" or "tradition".

I don't give a fuck if they eat it or not, if you're gonna ask, and you shouldn't either. Whether they shove it down their depraved guts or mount it on their walls makes no difference to nature, who has already lost.

>>2211377
>Punishing humans (especially the supposedly cruel and unusual punishment that OP seems to have in mind) because they toppled a rock isn't reasonable.
kys hippie
I bet you let your dogs shit on your bed and/or table

>>2210614
>making humans suffer for a rock formation
But it isn't that, it's making humans suffer for their ill-conceived actions. People get away with everything because "lol who cares", and the concept of consequence is lost on more and more people.

File: image.jpg (40KB, 291x284px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 291x284px

>>2211377
>part of the greater movement to end punishing humans for their actions because any form of punishment is cruel.

>>2210309
Looks like fucking trash too. Salt on the wound.

>>2211377
you're wrong because it's property, they should be punished for fucking up something that someone else owns. If a person cuts down someone else's tree they have damaged the person.
If you have a rock garden and someone comes by and takes all the rocks out it is still theft and you've been damaged.

Even if you don't care about the geological aspect of it, you must have some concept that people should be punished when they intentionally damage other people.

I assume you are aware of this and just being a rusemeister, but niggas can never be too careful

>>2213679
>missing the point this hard

>>2214191
>because it's property, they should be punished for fucking up something that someone else owns
That should be up to the owner, not some kids on a zambian TV drama forum.

>If a person cuts down someone else's tree they have damaged the person
Now this is some highly concentrated neo-liberal bullshit. Your property isn't part of your body, and should never be treated as such legally.
>inb4 "u hurt muh property, now I have the right to hurt ur body"

>Even if you don't care about the geological aspect of it
But I am. In fact, I'm solely interested in the geological aspect, and as I said earlier, I think it's a shame. It's just that these geological processes are constantly taking place in countless parts of the universe. It's constantly happening on a massive level. Getting your feathers ruffled because some simian toppled one tiny rock on one tiny planet is outright small minded.

>>2214207
Wrong.

Private property doesn't necessarily mean body, but one's body is his primary property, and deliberately damaging or stealing of one's private property, be it his body or not, is an act of aggression and puts the victim in the right to act in self-defense, even if it means having to kill the aggressor.

If damage on private property is allowed to go unpunished (not counting the damage inflicted by the state here for the sake of keeping this answer short), then we devolve into barbarism and chaos. Private property is the most basic pillar of order and civilization.

>>2214263
Also, i'm not the guy you replied to beforehand.

>>2214263
>stealing of one's private property, be it his body or not, is an act of aggression and puts the victim in the right to act in self-defense, even if it means having to kill the aggressor.
essentially untrue in every western nation including the US.

you don't get to kill people for stealing.

if you try to the thief has a right to kill you in self defense.

>>2214273
Wrong again

I was not talking from a legal perspective, i meant you are in the right to attack someone who violated your property based on a moral standpoint. It is self-defense and objectively moral whether the law agrees or not, since the law does not define morality.

>>2214282
It is immoral to even think of property as part of yourself, let alone to act violently based upon that absurd concept.

>>2214282
No one is saying a person should go without consequences for stealing. Sure it's an easy solution to just kill a person who fucked/had his life fucked up.

>>2214302
Wrong once more

Violating or stealing someone's resources/property is an act of agression and gives the victim the right to act in self defense

If this weren't an objective fact of nature and human interaction we would not be here right now and everything around you built by the man would not exist, civilization itself would never have advanced from pre historic levels.

>>2214305
Violating someone's resources/property is impossible. things can't be violated.
>stealing someone's resources/property is an act of agression
no, it's not.

>>2210614
basically this >>2212934

more and more people are starting to act like they can get away with destroying shit because "lol who cares it's just rocks/tree's/ancient ruins" when we should honestly be enforcing more strict penalties to prevent this kind of behavior. If we don't then it could get even more out of hand.

>>2214207
you're advocating lawlessness because only rocks were damaged. If someone torched your car you wouldn't shrug it off. You are either a retard or tragically impoverished

File: 3581385599_e564bca290.jpg (132KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 500x333px

>>2210309
Yeah I fucking hate it when people deface nature like that

File: entropy of a system increasing.gif (1002KB, 640x423px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 640x423px

ITT: everyone getting butthurt over the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

>>2215157
Well it works a bit strangely at times

>Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed” system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low — that is, divide energy unevenly among its atoms — by greatly increasing the entropy of its surroundings. In his influential 1944 monograph “What Is Life?” the eminent quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger argued that this is what living things must do. A plant, for example, absorbs extremely energetic sunlight, uses it to build sugars, and ejects infrared light, a much less concentrated form of energy. The overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates, even as the plant prevents itself from decaying by maintaining an orderly internal structure

Check dissipation-driven adaptation for an interesting theory of life.

It must've felt so satisfying to topple something that's been standing for thousands of years. If I were sure no one was watching me, I'd probably do exactly that.

>>2215372
Have you wondered why you feel this way? Does it make you feel powerful?

>>2210251
Nothing. Its just some stupid rocks and state parks are just another money racket anyway.

>>2215399
>Does it make you feel powerful?
I guess so! I am become death, destroyer of geological formations. Never again shall another man enjoy this erosion, for my hand hath forever left its mark upon this land.