JoeRatz16's forum posts

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]This is an accepted display at a university? Only in Kentucky...Ace6301

Why what's wrong with the display? And there are similar displays in other colleges not in Kentucky.

That is unfortunate.

how so?

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

This is an accepted display at a university? Only in Kentucky...Zeviander
Why what's wrong with the display? And there are similar displays in other colleges not in Kentucky.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

At Western Kentucky University there is a display of 3700 crosses set up by the university group Hilltoppers for Life. The 3700 crosses represent how many babies are killed by abortions per day in the United States. Well a group of vandals decided to vandalize this display by putting condoms over the crosses, and the Hilltoppers for life folk caught them and called police, but the police refused to arrest the vandals saying that they were not committing vandalism.

Hilltoppers for Life owns the crosses so it is their property, so how is this not vandalism (never mind the fact that this is sacrilegious). The vandals, mostly art students, said that what they were doing was part of an approved assignment. As John Sohl, president of Hilltoppers for life said "how does the university have the right to approve assignments that vandalize and desecrate the property and displays of other people?"

And apparently one of the students who vandalized this display actually got school credit for doing so. Quite crazy.

http://studentsforlife.org/2012/04/20/wku/

rzepak

3700 crosses in one place. Damn Id like to be there to burn them all.

My my someone is an intolerant bigot! You'de get arrested for sure though, no campus police department would let someone burn someone else's display.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

It is kind of disturbing to see so many people apparently supportive of desecrating and vandalizing people's displays.

Oleg_Huzwog

Again, it's not vandalism. You're welcome to discuss the offensiveness or sacrilege side of things, but don't make false accusations.

Well if it's not vandalism, then Hilltoppers hanging stuff on these art students' displays should be allowed as well. As long as there's no permanent damage, there is no vandalism, is that what you are trying to say?

But yes it is offensive and sacrilegious.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

Next thing you know people will be shoving spaghettios up their crotch and peeing in the can or dancing on butter and calling it art,DJ_Lae
I know, this whole "modern art" stuff is such junk. They pump out ugly stuff and call it art, they create blasphemous and sacrilegious works and call them art, and then they wonder why people get offended.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

Furthermore, it was on university property -- setting up the crosses in the first place is as much vandalism as putting the condoms on them.

Ace6301

The crosses were the property of Hilltoppers for Life and the display was approved by the university.

And the alteration was approved by the university as well.

But not by Hilltoppers which owned the crosses. Universities cannot approve altering someone else's property just because it is on university property. If a kid parks his car on a college parking lot, the college can't allow another kid to tape pictures to it or whatever.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

1) They didn't do any damage or anything
2) The display became problem and solution. Problem: aborted babies, solution: condoms. I feel like these people should get along.

zeldaluff

But they didn't have Hilltopper's for Life's permission to alter their display. At the very least they should've been forced to take the condoms off theirselves, but I think Hilltoppers probably ended up doing that.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

It is kind of disturbing to see so many people apparently supportive of desecrating and vandalizing people's displays.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

That's not vandalism. There was no destruction or damage to any property.

Slow_Show

Furthermore, it was on university property -- setting up the crosses in the first place is as much vandalism as putting the condoms on them.

The crosses were the property of Hilltoppers for Life and the display was approved by the university.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

11

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

That's not vandalism. There was no destruction or damage to any property.

Oleg_Huzwog

So putting stuff on people's property is not illegal? Well maybe Hilltopper's for Life should go to the arts building of the university and hang stuff of off the art student's "art" work.