I don't live in Deutschland either, nor would I want to, but that's a nice tenet they have there
BTW, it could be argued that since the house is culturally significant - i.e. a significant example of American culture -, you as an American have a right to see it preserved, whether you cherish that right or not. Also, the destruction of a culturally relevant object does not necessarily have to be so devastating as to "irreparably damage the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations". It's just wrong in and of itself.
Please justify the bolded statement with such an argument that absolutely no person could refute it.
Whilst I am not qualified or sufficiently well-informed to comment on this particular instance, there are some terribly depressing opinions expressed in this thread. It brings to mind Oscar Wilde's definition of a cynic as 'someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing'.
I think you people should stuff your antiquated ideas about property rights. Our Party is working hard to dissolve that outdated concept. The only thing that matters is what is good for the nation and world.
Jobs does not have the right to just go and destroy something. It was right for the government to step in but it sounds like some judges have yet to be replaced with more open minded Progressives.
Maybe if people understand that no one should have the right to own property issues like this would be a non-issue.
Housing and plans for housing should be submitted to the government, the government should then approve or disapprove. If approved then the home could be built but then the tenant would pay rent to the government for the use of that home. You see how simple that is? And no more silly drama.
And yes everyone has a right to education and healthcare at no cost to them.
Wake up America, the only course of action to save our world is for all nations to unite with one government body. Then we would have only one language, one people, one earth, and everyone would have everything.
By the way, your initial point is quite interesting. I have never been to the US (though I would love to visit someday), so I'm out of my element here, but I refuse to accept your contention that Americans don't value their cultural heritage, because this implies that they don't HAVE one. Sure they do! Some of the most significant buildings and works of art in the whole world are situated in the US. SNIP
lol. maybe that part of my post didn't come across as much 'tongue in cheek' as i intended. :-P
i can't speak for the US either, but the part of canada i live in doesn't have a single building that's even 100 years old.
As long as the building is built to survive the next big one, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Given the house in question, it sounds like the existing house wouldn't survive.
The existing house would probably "rubble-up" at the first tremor. (I wonder what its "seismic-event record" happens to be anyway...)
And you just _know_ that the new structure would be super-reinforced (or able to collapse neatly, like a MBP ).
Please justify the bolded statement with such an argument that absolutely no person could refute it.
-Clive
You know that's impossible, and I admit that I was being hyperbolic. I was just exposing your strawman: if an object is deemed worthy of preservation, that does not mean that its destruction would cause "irreparabl[e] damage [to] the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations", as you polemically postulated. It merely means (at least where I live) that actual experts - scientists, you know - deem the building worthy of preservation for specific reasons, which are surely not kept from the public.
A bold claim without justification is just a bold claim.
No, the bold claims have been made entirely by you, since you are lacking in knowledge in this area. You could start by googling for National Register of Historic Places. California has an analogous process called the California Register of Historical Resources. Both have specific criteria, methods, and standards for eligibility. Nominations are prepared by historians, and peer reviewed by other historians.
When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
Ever read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four?
(And of all the places to invoke that novel -- how bloody appropriate!!!)
I agree. soon with the new world order religion, except that of worshipping our mother earth government will be banned and I hope all its practitioners will be put to death. We don't need religion in this planet. Only the government deserves to have the position of God Almighty.
Think of it, one language, one currency, one people, one world. And our lives would not have to have drama because we would have purpose... to serve our God the new world order. No one would be unhappy. And there would be no violence after the purging. There would only be compliance and happy productive people.
Okay, then if there's absolutely no emotion involved, then let's document every possible detail of the house and rip the thing down. Problem Solved.
So according to you we could just burn the Mona Lisa, since we have high-quality posters of the painting? Christ, you can't be serious.
Quote:
While bluntly stated by iLuv, there are forms of slavery that exist today in modern culture. South Korea, for example, mandates military service of all men.
My country does that too. I was still able to get around it. And even if they had snagged me, I could simply have refused to serve. They would have thrown me in jail, but screw them. Anyway, this is completely tangential. I was merely saying that just because something is legal it isn't automatically the ethically correct thing to do. I used the slave-example to illustrate that.
(And of all the places to invoke that novel -- how bloody appropriate!!!)
What's wrong with you, seriously? There's a difference between fascist oppression and well-reasoned rational rules that allow a community to exist in peace. My parents themselves immediately realized that the windows were a bad idea, because guess what, they're proud to own a historically significant building, and they're intelligent enough to understand that the public interest in the preservation of such a building overrides an individual's petty interest in bigger windows or whatever.
You know that's impossible, and I admit that I was being hyperbolic. I was just exposing your strawman: if an object is deemed worthy of preservation, that does not mean that its destruction would cause "irreparabl[e] damage [to] the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations", as you polemically postulated. It merely means (at least where I live) that actual experts - scientists, you know - deem the building worthy of preservation for specific reasons, which are surely not kept from the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
No, the bold claims have been made entirely by you, since you are lacking in knowledge in this area. You could start by googling for National Register of Historic Places. California has an analogous process called the California Register of Historical Resources. Both have specific criteria, methods, and standards for eligibility. Nominations are prepared by historians, and peer reviewed by other historians.
To the both of you: My argument with Parkettpolitur from the very start is that you can't write a scientific formula for what constitutes cultural significance. There is no real SCIENCE behind it. Only human perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
So according to you we could just burn the Mona Lisa, since we have high-quality posters of the painting? Christ, you can't be serious.
No, that's not my argument... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?
My country does that too. I was still able to get around it. And even if they had snagged me, I could simply have refused to serve. They would have thrown me in jail, but screw them. Anyway, this is completely tangential. I was merely saying that just because something is legal it isn't automatically the ethically correct thing to do. I used the slave-example to illustrate that.
So you're saying you have an opposing view towards mandatory military service -- something deemed important by the very same people who entrust our cultural preservation to so-called experts on the matter. If they're wrong about mandatory service, how do you know they're not also wrong regarding the people they empower to determine cultural importance?
What kind of a world are we living in where a man doesn't have the right to destroy something he owns?
The same world where you buy a copy of OS X Snow Leopard and can only install it on hardware from Apple even though you can install it on a PC.
When you buy a historical house it comes with conditions set by the community.
When you buy a house in a planned neighborhood it comes with conditions set by the association.
When you buy a condo it comes with conditions set by the condo board.
When you plan to build a house or renovate you come under the town, counties or states conditions.
If you plan to build a airport or a helipad on your front lawn you come under Federal Aviation conditions.
If you plan or need to break certain conditions, you have to get a variance to the rules from your local neighbors if it's possible or allowed. If you've made any local enemies, your likely not going to get your variance.
If you don't like the conditions, then don't buy. Buy somewhere else where there are conditions you can agree on.
The community voice is stronger than just one voice in the ears of the government.
There's a difference between fascist oppression and well-reasoned rational rules that allow a community to exist in peace.
Depends on who's who on the "fascist oppression" side of the fence. "Well-reasoned" and "rational" are extremely subjective terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
My parents themselves immediately realized that the windows were a bad idea, because guess what, they're proud to own a historically significant building, and they're intelligent enough to understand that the public interest in the preservation of such a building overrides an individual's petty interest in bigger windows or whatever.
Funny how you failed to mention their "pride" earlier, not to mention their realization and understanding of the "bad idea." Instead, you highlighted how your own stance on the issue was in direct opposition to their initial wishes. (This, of course, is what drove my comment.)
"...overrides an individual's petty interest in bigger windows or whatever" -- I would hardly call wanting bigger windows to be "petty."
Comments
I don't live in Deutschland either, nor would I want to, but that's a nice tenet they have there
BTW, it could be argued that since the house is culturally significant - i.e. a significant example of American culture -, you as an American have a right to see it preserved, whether you cherish that right or not. Also, the destruction of a culturally relevant object does not necessarily have to be so devastating as to "irreparably damage the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations". It's just wrong in and of itself.
Please justify the bolded statement with such an argument that absolutely no person could refute it.
-Clive
Religion has no place in a debate.
.
People are talking about morality. Somebody said that it is not moral. I am saying that owning slaves is moral because it says so in the Bible.
The Bible does not say you can't tear down your own house!
Jobs does not have the right to just go and destroy something. It was right for the government to step in but it sounds like some judges have yet to be replaced with more open minded Progressives.
Maybe if people understand that no one should have the right to own property issues like this would be a non-issue.
Housing and plans for housing should be submitted to the government, the government should then approve or disapprove. If approved then the home could be built but then the tenant would pay rent to the government for the use of that home. You see how simple that is? And no more silly drama.
And yes everyone has a right to education and healthcare at no cost to them.
Wake up America, the only course of action to save our world is for all nations to unite with one government body. Then we would have only one language, one people, one earth, and everyone would have everything.
SNIP
By the way, your initial point is quite interesting. I have never been to the US (though I would love to visit someday), so I'm out of my element here, but I refuse to accept your contention that Americans don't value their cultural heritage, because this implies that they don't HAVE one. Sure they do! Some of the most significant buildings and works of art in the whole world are situated in the US. SNIP
lol. maybe that part of my post didn't come across as much 'tongue in cheek' as i intended. :-P
i can't speak for the US either, but the part of canada i live in doesn't have a single building that's even 100 years old.
As long as the building is built to survive the next big one, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Given the house in question, it sounds like the existing house wouldn't survive.
The existing house would probably "rubble-up" at the first tremor. (I wonder what its "seismic-event record" happens to be anyway...)
And you just _know_ that the new structure would be super-reinforced (or able to collapse neatly, like a MBP
Please justify the bolded statement with such an argument that absolutely no person could refute it.
-Clive
You know that's impossible, and I admit that I was being hyperbolic. I was just exposing your strawman: if an object is deemed worthy of preservation, that does not mean that its destruction would cause "irreparabl[e] damage [to] the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations", as you polemically postulated. It merely means (at least where I live) that actual experts - scientists, you know - deem the building worthy of preservation for specific reasons, which are surely not kept from the public.
A bold claim without justification is just a bold claim.
No, the bold claims have been made entirely by you, since you are lacking in knowledge in this area. You could start by googling for National Register of Historic Places. California has an analogous process called the California Register of Historical Resources. Both have specific criteria, methods, and standards for eligibility. Nominations are prepared by historians, and peer reviewed by other historians.
i can't speak for the US either, but the part of canada i live in doesn't have a single building that's even 100 years old.
Good for you! Canada is a great Country!
New houses are better.
When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
Ever read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four?
(And of all the places to invoke that novel -- how bloody appropriate!!!)
Religion has no place in a debate.
Go spam somewhere else.
I agree. soon with the new world order religion, except that of worshipping our mother earth government will be banned and I hope all its practitioners will be put to death. We don't need religion in this planet. Only the government deserves to have the position of God Almighty.
Think of it, one language, one currency, one people, one world. And our lives would not have to have drama because we would have purpose... to serve our God the new world order. No one would be unhappy. And there would be no violence after the purging. There would only be compliance and happy productive people.
Okay, then if there's absolutely no emotion involved, then let's document every possible detail of the house and rip the thing down. Problem Solved.
So according to you we could just burn the Mona Lisa, since we have high-quality posters of the painting? Christ, you can't be serious.
While bluntly stated by iLuv, there are forms of slavery that exist today in modern culture. South Korea, for example, mandates military service of all men.
My country does that too. I was still able to get around it. And even if they had snagged me, I could simply have refused to serve. They would have thrown me in jail, but screw them. Anyway, this is completely tangential. I was merely saying that just because something is legal it isn't automatically the ethically correct thing to do. I used the slave-example to illustrate that.
Ever read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four?
(And of all the places to invoke that novel -- how bloody appropriate!!!)
What's wrong with you, seriously? There's a difference between fascist oppression and well-reasoned rational rules that allow a community to exist in peace. My parents themselves immediately realized that the windows were a bad idea, because guess what, they're proud to own a historically significant building, and they're intelligent enough to understand that the public interest in the preservation of such a building overrides an individual's petty interest in bigger windows or whatever.
Just noticed your sig. Nice.
You know that's impossible, and I admit that I was being hyperbolic. I was just exposing your strawman: if an object is deemed worthy of preservation, that does not mean that its destruction would cause "irreparabl[e] damage [to] the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations", as you polemically postulated. It merely means (at least where I live) that actual experts - scientists, you know - deem the building worthy of preservation for specific reasons, which are surely not kept from the public.
No, the bold claims have been made entirely by you, since you are lacking in knowledge in this area. You could start by googling for National Register of Historic Places. California has an analogous process called the California Register of Historical Resources. Both have specific criteria, methods, and standards for eligibility. Nominations are prepared by historians, and peer reviewed by other historians.
To the both of you: My argument with Parkettpolitur from the very start is that you can't write a scientific formula for what constitutes cultural significance. There is no real SCIENCE behind it. Only human perception.
So according to you we could just burn the Mona Lisa, since we have high-quality posters of the painting? Christ, you can't be serious.
No, that's not my argument... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?
-Clive
An iHouse, with no Windows..
Ahahah!!! Good! I agree with You!
My country does that too. I was still able to get around it. And even if they had snagged me, I could simply have refused to serve. They would have thrown me in jail, but screw them. Anyway, this is completely tangential. I was merely saying that just because something is legal it isn't automatically the ethically correct thing to do. I used the slave-example to illustrate that.
So you're saying you have an opposing view towards mandatory military service -- something deemed important by the very same people who entrust our cultural preservation to so-called experts on the matter. If they're wrong about mandatory service, how do you know they're not also wrong regarding the people they empower to determine cultural importance?
-Clive
If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?
-Clive
If Steve owned it he could destroy it.
What kind of a world are we living in where a man doesn't have the right to destroy something he owns?
The same world where you buy a copy of OS X Snow Leopard and can only install it on hardware from Apple even though you can install it on a PC.
When you buy a historical house it comes with conditions set by the community.
When you buy a house in a planned neighborhood it comes with conditions set by the association.
When you buy a condo it comes with conditions set by the condo board.
When you plan to build a house or renovate you come under the town, counties or states conditions.
If you plan to build a airport or a helipad on your front lawn you come under Federal Aviation conditions.
If you plan or need to break certain conditions, you have to get a variance to the rules from your local neighbors if it's possible or allowed. If you've made any local enemies, your likely not going to get your variance.
If you don't like the conditions, then don't buy. Buy somewhere else where there are conditions you can agree on.
The community voice is stronger than just one voice in the ears of the government.
There's a difference between fascist oppression and well-reasoned rational rules that allow a community to exist in peace.
Depends on who's who on the "fascist oppression" side of the fence. "Well-reasoned" and "rational" are extremely subjective terms.
My parents themselves immediately realized that the windows were a bad idea, because guess what, they're proud to own a historically significant building, and they're intelligent enough to understand that the public interest in the preservation of such a building overrides an individual's petty interest in bigger windows or whatever.
Funny how you failed to mention their "pride" earlier, not to mention their realization and understanding of the "bad idea." Instead, you highlighted how your own stance on the issue was in direct opposition to their initial wishes. (This, of course, is what drove my comment.)
"...overrides an individual's petty interest in bigger windows or whatever" -- I would hardly call wanting bigger windows to be "petty."