51 replies to this topic

[Tony]

I have an idea, let's start our own country with just one party, and no more freedom of expression.

I agree with you guys, people who share different values than us shouldn't even be able to put signs on their property expressing those different values.

They should expect people to come onto their property & vandalize those signs...

What do they think this is, America?

I, myself, don't think think love should be legislated at all. No legal Gay marriage, no legal straight marriage, no tax breaks, period. tax breaks for 'kids in the home', regardless of the sex of the partners.

End of story.

i'm not advocating that people go out and destroy signs. i'm just exercising my right for freedom of speech to say that i don't have sympathy for the supporters of that proposition and i certainly don't mind that people are sharing their opinions on their signs.

and i'd totally support the idea of just on party with no freedom of expression, so long as i was in charge.

john - next time i drive by it i'll snap a pic and send it to you. it's at 40th st. and oak - or at least it was on sunday. they may have removed it already.

[Jacki O.]

I have no problem vandalizing signs that promote hateful legislation that aims to deny certain citizens of other citizen's legal civil rights.

This is a civil rights issue and it is embarrassing that this shit is even up for being voted on, AGAIN. 20 years from now we are going to look back at this and be like "oh yeah, sorry about that, we were dickheads back then" - just like we do with the Jim Crow laws from the 60s.

I'm not a morally high person with regards to this shit. These are the same people that kill doctors and bomb clinics for providing abortions, that picket Planned Parenthoods, they think dinosaurs didn't exist, and that creationism should be taught in public schools over scientific theories of evolution. They are retarding America.

Get off your high horse Shane - like we need YOU to remind us about morality? You're our moral compass? Do unto others as they would do unto you???? That's the motto you live by right?

The beautiful thing about America is that we can discuss how stupid those people are and vandalize their expensive signs without worrying about being sent to forced labor camps or being tortured and killed for it.

[raubhimself]

In my experience, being an asshole to someone isn't the best way to stop them from being an asshole to someone else.

I appreciate the fact that you CAN do it. Hell, I stole a huge campaign sign while drunk and then burned it once. It was fun.

But at the same time, by vandalizing people's signs, you're doing nothing more than widening the gap between two ideas, preventing further discussion instead of encouraging it.

Do some people who are against gay marriage bomb abortion clinics and try to force creationism in schools? Yes. But do all of them? Do most of them, even? You're making a very harsh judgment on someone based on the actions of someone else. Now if you have proof against a person, by all means...

Generally, harsh actions like vandalism, when used as a form of protest, only solidify the views of either side of the fence. Anyone who wants gay marriage will applaud the vandalism, and anyone against gay marriage will think it's awful. But now everyone is all riled up and pissed off at each other instead of being respectful and trying to work things out for the best.

Honestly, vandalizing a sign is exactly the same as bombing an abortion clinic in terms of effectiveness.

[eraser]

I'm a fan of defacing and/or reclaiming billboards since they essentially take up public visual space and commercialize it - just think of them as pop up ads that you can never avoid and you'll understand the visual annoyance they cause that we've all gotten used to.

I'm assuming that we're talking about billboards or other big ads (since several thousands of dollars were mentioned) and not those signs that people put up around their house.

Although I sometimes get the urge to destroy, deface, or steal those lawn signs that promote candidates or causes I disagree with, I think it's ultimately kind of creepy and counter-productive.

Anyway ...

Thanks for those links, especially the PDF by the AZ Advocacy Network. As much as PDFs can be annoying, it definitely clears things up.

That's hilarious and awesome that Prop 101 is opposed by AZ National Organization of Wome, Planned Parenthood, AND the Arizona Republican Assembly.

[Hooray For Everything]

I have no problem vandalizing signs that promote hateful legislation that aims to deny certain citizens of other citizen's legal civil rights.

This is a civil rights issue and it is embarrassing that this shit is even up for being voted on, AGAIN. 20 years from now we are going to look back at this and be like "oh yeah, sorry about that, we were dickheads back then" - just like we do with the Jim Crow laws from the 60s.

I'm not a morally high person with regards to this shit. These are the same people that kill doctors and bomb clinics for providing abortions, that picket Planned Parenthoods, they think dinosaurs didn't exist, and that creationism should be taught in public schools over scientific theories of evolution. They are retarding America.

Get off your high horse Shane - like we need YOU to remind us about morality? You're our moral compass? Do unto others as they would do unto you???? That's the motto you live by right?

The beautiful thing about America is that we can discuss how stupid those people are and vandalize their expensive signs without worrying about being sent to forced labor camps or being tortured and killed for it.

Let's not make this a personal thing, , we agree on the main point, I'm guessing, that love should not be legislated, let's focus on that.....and again, my point, ironically, was people should be able to express opposing viewpoints with risking personal attack.

Certainly one can have principles, ethics, & morals that are important to them, and yet, not live up to them in their own personal life.

[Tony]

I'm assuming that we're talking about billboards or other big ads (since several thousands of dollars were mentioned) and not those signs that people put up around their house.

actually, not billboards. they're the ones that are on the street corners (maybe 2 feet by 4 feet?). but evidently they hit a LOT of them. and i got the "thousands of dollars" quote from the local news - who got it from the people who put up the signs. i think they said $6k to fix all the damage?

[John MFer]

But at the same time, by vandalizing people's signs, you're doing nothing more than widening the gap between two ideas, preventing further discussion instead of encouraging it.

There isn't any more room to discuss. There's yes, and there's no to this ballot, which is a very wide gap and is fixed and unchangeable. Yes For Hate is just as accurate as Yes For Marriage.

i think they said $6k to fix all the damage?

I read they raised 6.9 million to promote yes on 102, so $6k? That's nothing for them. Boo fucking hoo.

[Tony]

i think they said $6k to fix all the damage?

I read they raised 6.9 million to promote yes on 102, so $6k? That's nothing for them. Boo fucking hoo.

it takes a lot of cash to keep the gays in line, john.

[Jacki O.]

Honestly, vandalizing a sign is exactly the same as bombing an abortion clinic in terms of effectiveness.

really?


I whole heartedly disagree.

[raubhimself]

Honestly, vandalizing a sign is exactly the same as bombing an abortion clinic in terms of effectiveness.

really?


I whole heartedly disagree.

Well, that's fine. Note that I didn't say bombing buildings and killing = vandalizing signs. They differ greatly there and I will not argue that. But in terms of arguing a point and trying to persuade someone, it's the same thing. You're doing something drastic, possibly illegal, and with malicious intent that has little to do with the actual issue while avoiding communication with the people you disagree with. And like I said, the end result is a widening of the gap between both sides, so effectively things are only made worse.

Not that talking about the issues really helps much either...

[mancopter]

it takes a lot of cash to keep the gays in line, john.

Sweet jesus I laughed.

[Jacki O.]

Honestly, vandalizing a sign is exactly the same as bombing an abortion clinic in terms of effectiveness.

really?


I whole heartedly disagree.

Well, that's fine. Note that I didn't say bombing buildings and killing = vandalizing signs. They differ greatly there and I will not argue that. But in terms of arguing a point and trying to persuade someone, it's the same thing. You're doing something drastic, possibly illegal, and with malicious intent that has little to do with the actual issue while avoiding communication with the people you disagree with. And like I said, the end result is a widening of the gap between both sides, so effectively things are only made worse.

Not that talking about the issues really helps much either...

I still disagree

vandalizing signs to show how stupid a potential amendment denying someone their civil rights is vs. putting a bomb in a building to show that you don't believe a medical act should be legal.

Destruction of property, livelihood, and murder to prove a point is not the same as putting a piece of tape over a sign to prove a point. They don't have the same effectiveness. Bombing abortion clinics make doctors, nurses, employees and patients afraid for their lives, takes away someone's livelihood and employment and costs way more than $6k. It discourages dialogue on a sensitive topic and reduces a much needed discussion to acts of violence against other human beings. It discourages other doctors from providing adequate healthcare to women or even learning about being able to provide safe and private health services. Marking up a sign makes people pissed off that their $6k sign got vandalized. In terms of effectiveness i would say a bomb is more effective in producing and distributing fear, that's it's intent, vandalizing a sign's intent is to state the opposite point that that sign is promoting. Both are illegal, yes, but so is smoking in a restaurant or jaywalking.

It is not the same action and it doesn't get the same results. I understand what you are saying - the intent to prove an opposite point is the same (but you can say that about putting a bumper sticker on your car) but the effectiveness, the result, and the damages are completely, utterly and totally different.

[raubhimself]

I'm not arguing that the damages are different.

Seriously, this is all I am saying: Bombing an abortion clinic and vandalizing signs don't do anything to further discussion. That's it. In terms of persuasive argument, they have the same effectiveness, which is 0.

If some thug vandalized your AIDS awareness bumper sticker and scribbled something like "Fags can go to hell", would that make you think "Hmm, you know what, I really should think about the other side of this issue", or would you think "God damn son of a bitch"?

Anyways, I have nothing to do with all of this and I'm just really bored at work... I'll stop now.

[Jacki O.]

I'm not arguing that the damages are different.

Seriously, this is all I am saying: Bombing an abortion clinic and vandalizing signs don't do anything to further discussion. That's it. In terms of persuasive argument, they have the same effectiveness, which is 0.

If some thug vandalized your AIDS awareness bumper sticker and scribbled something like "Fags can go to hell", would that make you think "Hmm, you know what, I really should think about the other side of this issue", or would you think "God damn son of a bitch"?

Anyways, I have nothing to do with all of this and I'm just really bored at work... I'll stop now.

well my bad, i was arguing your statement: Honestly, vandalizing a sign is exactly the same as bombing an abortion clinic in terms of effectiveness.

i thought you were saying in terms of effectiveness of the action.

Though i don't vandalize signs to attempt at furthering discussion with the opposing side. and i don't think people who bomb buildings and murder people do it to further discussion of the topic by both sides. I don't think either of those actions are intended to spark up debates on an issue.

[chadk]

I, myself, don't think think love should be legislated at all. No legal Gay marriage, no legal straight marriage, no tax breaks, period. tax breaks for 'kids in the home', regardless of the sex of the partners.

um i was really stoked about those "tax breaks" but when i went to do my taxes through my tax guy that art one gallery set me up with, i was shocked to hear the it would have been better tax wise if we had not gotten married.

i'm pretty sure it's because our income combined put us into a higher tax bracket.