"Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis" (Dwhite95)
08/03/2014 at 18:31 • Filed to: None
7
9|
"Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis" (Dwhite95)
08/03/2014 at 18:31 • Filed to: None | 7
| 9 |
Thought it was pretty cool.
desertdog5051
> Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/03/2014 at 18:50 |
|
More graffiti in our National Parks. Just what we need more of. If I showed you what those tagging A-holes have done to priceless, thousands of years old, Hieroglyphs...
EDIT: Nothing personal against you, Dwhite, but don't give that stuff any publicity.
norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback
> Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/03/2014 at 18:52 |
|
Glacier NP is better. You have to take the Going to the Sun highway on the red bus tour. Best 8 hours of all time.
$kaycog
> desertdog5051
08/03/2014 at 18:53 |
|
Exactly! It's pathetic.
|
Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
> desertdog5051
08/03/2014 at 19:02 |
|
It was off trail then in a place where few would ever see it. If it was in a more public place or in a place with hieroglyphs I would have a problem with it. That being said I do understand where you are coming from.
|
desertdog5051
> Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/03/2014 at 19:12 |
|
That is the saddest. They go to out of the way places to tag and it ruins it for everyone who wants to see the area as it should be and finds a tag... there is no "out of the way" place in most National Parks, plus it makes it harder to get to to remove. As I said, nothing personal.
phoenixbondoob
> Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/03/2014 at 20:06 |
|
my neighbor's half-sister makes $69 an hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for 8 months but last month her payment was $17042 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to this website....................>>> WWW.JOBSAA.COM
GhostZ
> desertdog5051
08/03/2014 at 20:08 |
|
I can understand doing it against things with historical significance, but given the sheer size, constantly changing nature, and relatively small impact this makes on the surrounding environment, is it really that bad? I would think someone throwing their plastic water bottle or a bag of chips would do far more damage to the park than this piece of graffiti. For example, I doubt that graffiti will be visible in a year or two's time, and I don't see it hurting any species (maybe some bugs?) because it exists.
Would I do it myself? No, but would I headhunt the judge the person who did it? Probably not. It's a park, not a museum, basically. That being said, I don't think about/deal with this often, so maybe I just haven't experienced enough to know what it's so hated, other than just because that's what we're told to hate.
Also, as an aside, in the realm of graffiti this... isn't very good and doesn't make much sense, which also affects its usefulness.
|
desertdog5051
> GhostZ
08/03/2014 at 21:22 |
|
GhostZ, I have only this further comment. Your first 2 sentences showed me there is no position adequate to take to counter your position.
I have picked up many water bottles, soda cans, chip bags, cigarette butts and assorted other stuff some people think are insignificant in my visits to National, State, County and City Parks, Monuments, even road-side pull offs that are not even rest areas. I have seen how long graffiti and just about anything else but water lasts in a dry climate.
I have hiked for long distances to see something spectacular and found piles of feces, trash, graffiti and other things left by inconsiderate people.
These areas were set aside for people like you and me, to recreate, enjoy, be astonished by. Should not everyone have the same opportunity to experience it the way it was intended?
Not intended as a personal affront against you. Just stating the facts. Come see America's west and the grandeur of its places.
|
GhostZ
> desertdog5051
08/03/2014 at 21:36 |
|
I've been up and down the Rockies, Pike's Peak, Grand canyon (I even went rafting there) and Yellowstone when I was younger, but I've never been 'astonished' by nature. I've seen beautiful things, but I'm not the type of person to spend weeks/months/years seeking out natural area because as cool as it is, I don't feel that I gain any more knowledge, appreciation, or experience that I had before, or that I haven't already gotten well beforehand.
I should have phrased my comment differently, but I was legitimately asking if graffiti is worse than littering, and if an absolute extremist stance against it is necessary. I'm not a park ranger and I don't know anything about how littering affects an area biologically, so I was legitimately wondering if there was a reason (beyond aesthetics) that this graffiti was actually such a horrible sin, or there's just an absolute extremist stance against anything like this, which, from your comment, seems to be the case.
I don't know the biology of how graffiti affects an environment, and I would not lump it in the same group as feces, paper, or plastic trash, as they all have different effects, but that's why I am asking, to learn more.
As an aside, in regards to the purpose of parks, if the spirit of national parks is to astonish people (which, I don't believe that is the case, I think they exist more as preservation for species, environmental study, and natural phenomenon, as their capacity to be 'breathtaking' has been greatly, greatly diminished in the last 50 years) then I would think that by now we would have found better ways to teach and astonish people that didn't cost so much time and energy to preserve. That's why I think there's got to be some scientific, biological, and research advantage to preserving these parks. The sociological effect of preservation (teaching people about nature is measurably tiny.)
But, like I said, I haven't heard arguments from the other side that made more sense than "Nature is sacred, anyone who defiles it is horrible".