544
Comments (68)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-4
AnointedVisions -4 points ago +11 / -15

It’s not a scribble on a rock anymore than the constitution is scribble on paper.

No, that's stupid.

10
SCP0073 10 points ago +15 / -5

It was important to whoever made it and pretending it’s not is what is stupid. It’s art and a historical treasure and it should be respected. The constitution is more important, yes, and I don’t want to see it vandalized either.

0
AnointedVisions 0 points ago +7 / -7

If I carve my name in a tree, does that mean the tree should never be cut down? Can everyone start gouging their graffiti into the rocks at national parks, would you be OK with that?

3
SCP0073 3 points ago +6 / -3

If you had something smart to say, then yes, I would say save the tree. A person is not a culture. Should we destroy film, photographs, paintings, books, because a single person made them? No. Those rocks are how that culture told stories and passed along information to the next generation. And the one after that. Just like WE DO. Again, it’s important to preserve such treasures and it’s important to view them as such.

1
LostPWLostVALOR 1 point ago +2 / -1

With the price of lumber? Cut that shit down!

0
infeststation 0 points ago +3 / -3

It’s important to preserve history but you can’t claim mountains because of some random drawings. At some point, you’ll be preserving everything.

-2
AnointedVisions -2 points ago +1 / -3

So the standard of whether a person's graffiti should be protected is whether or not it's "smart?" How "smart" is the petroglyph in this picture?

-1
CantStumpTheTrump -1 points ago +2 / -3

If the tree survives a hundreds of years and the engraving was still intact then yes I would expect them to preserve it.

Like, wtf kind of question even is this?