Cross on summit of Carrauntoohil cut down with angle grinder (Warning: contains TLAs)

Bloodwing

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not an insubstantial cross, but it's not particularly substantial either. i suspect someone who was in it purely for financial gain would have been able to benefit from far lower hanging fruit.

Very true, I was just putting another theory out there. Some of the individuals involved in metal theft would stun you with their stupidity though, so anything is possible.

swampgas

You know, it would be nice if just once some of the people who are so adamant that the cross should be there, and who are so quick to point out that it has broad support from the community, could find it in themselves to admit publically that maybe there are other Irish people who they share this island with who are not Catholic and who do not want a cross there, or even some people who are Catholic and still don't want a cross there. Tolerance for other views, never mind religions, does not seem to be evident. Which makes their stance (IMO) all the more objectionable.

There seems to be a siege mentality among some Catholics in Ireland, such that you'd think Cromwell was still running the place.

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

You know, it would be nice if just once some of the people who are so adamant that the cross should be there, and who are so quick to point out that it has broad support from the community, could find it in themselves to admit publically that maybe there are other Irish people who they share this island with who are not Catholic and who do not want a cross there, or even some people who are Catholic and still don't want a cross there. Tolerance for other views, never mind religions, does not seem to be evident. Which makes their stance (IMO) all the more objectionable.

There seems to be a siege mentality among some Catholics in Ireland, such that you'd think Cromwell was still running the place.

What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...

Which is where, exactly? And is this wanton vandalism? Is erecting an unnatural object in an area of natural beauty not wanton vandalism?

eviltwin

katydid wrote: »

What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...

I wonder do they see it as vandalism or restoring the mountain to its former beauty. Most vandalism ruins an area and leaves it in a mess, this didn't.

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder do they see it as vandalism or restoring the mountain to its former beauty. Most vandalism ruins an area and leaves it in a mess, this didn't.

Vandalism is the deliberate destruction or defacing public or private property. Whether or not it "ruins an area" is irrelevant. It is illegal.

If you support vandalism in one instance, how can you condemn it in other instances?

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

Vandalism is the deliberate destruction or defacing public or private property. Whether or not it "ruins an area" is irrelevant. It is illegal.

If you support vandalism in one instance, how can you condemn it in other instances?

Is the erecting of a man made object such as a cross ever vandalism?

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Which is where, exactly? And is this wanton vandalism? Is erecting an unnatural object in an area of natural beauty not wanton vandalism?

Like the Christ statue overlooking Rio? No, it's not. It's private property, and while there may be planning issue, it's certainly not vandalism.

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

What would be really really nice would be if some of the people who are applauding this vandalism would think for a moment about where supporting wanton vandalism leads to...

Ah yes...that slippery slope we all know and love here in A&A. The one where liking sweetness leads to multiple packs of chocolate chip cookies; supporting women's reproductive choice leads to plummeting birth rates and enforced abortions; gay marriage leads to gender ambivalent children with no respect for the tax system; secularism leads to an immoral society bent (no pun intended) on tormenting the RCC; etc.

Wanton vandalism is, as you say, "wanton" ie. deliberate and unprovoked. We don't know why the cross was toppled, but if it were because some folk had had enough of the notion of the cross symbolising Irish people, I (for one) can't blame them. And at this stage in the game, I wouldn't call it un-provoked.

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Is the erecting of a man made object such as a cross ever vandalism?

It is possible to be so if it is done illegally in a clearly inappropriate place, without the consent of the landowner. You may think it was an inappropriate place, but that is a subjective opinion.

eviltwin

katydid wrote: »

Vandalism is the deliberate destruction or defacing public or private property. Whether or not it "ruins an area" is irrelevant. It is illegal.

If you support vandalism in one instance, how can you condemn it in other instances?

I don't support vandalism, I'm just wondering if the people behind this were seeing the act in a different light. I don't agree with what they did but I believe areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures if at all possible.

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

Ah yes...that slippery slope we all know and love here in A&A. The one where liking sweetness leads to multiple packs of chocolate chip cookies; supporting women's reproductive choice leads to plummeting birth rates and enforced abortions; gay marriage leads to gender ambivalent children with no respect for the tax system; secularism leads to an immoral society bent (no pun intended) on tormenting the RCC; etc.

Wanton vandalism is, as you say, "wanton" ie. deliberate and unprovoked. We don't know why the cross was toppled, but if it were because some folk had had enough of the notion of the cross symbolising Irish people, I (for one) can't blame them. And at this stage in the game, I wouldn't call it un-provoked.

What provoked it?

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

Like the Christ statue overlooking Rio? No, it's not. It's private property, and while there may be planning issue, it's certainly not vandalism.

Like a poorly constructed cross on top of a mountain? Is that vandalism? Would a statue of Kim Kardashian be vandalism on top of the mountain? Or how about a giant star of David, would that be vandalism if I put one up on the mountain?

eviltwin

Were the people who tore down the Berlin Wall vandals too?

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

What provoked it?

Weeelll, I don't know :rolleyes:. Perhaps the promotion of a religion on top of the highest Irish mountain peak that every Irish person should be able to call their own? Except a religion did call it their own, with a big ugly cross. That mountain is not belonging to Christianity/RCC/any other religion. It is OURS. Not theirs.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

Like a poorly constructed cross on top of a mountain? Is that vandalism? Would a statue of Kim Kardashian be vandalism on top of the mountain? Or how about a giant star of David, would that be vandalism if I put one up on the mountain?

Totally. Yes. All vandalism.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

Totally. Yes. All vandalism.

And tearing them down wouldn't be.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

And tearing them down wouldn't be.

Completely depends on if there was proper paperwork for said Kim/Star of David statues. If they were all legal, then yes it was vandalism. If not, then it wasn't. No?

recedite

looksee wrote: »

Some vandals in Waterford decided for whatever reason to chop down a 'fairy tree' on the way up to Mahon Falls. Were they Christians objecting to a pagan symbol? Or were they just ignorant fools who did it because they could? Another tree was planted to replace it, and rightly so, but the original tree which was a local landmark (for the magic road) is gone. Just because somebody wanted to inflict their views on other people.

That is a shame. I saw it there, a small hawthorn I think, with lots of little rags tied onto it. There is actually a thread about it, and boards gossip (which may be as truthful as gospel) seems to indicate that the culprit was a local landowner who cut it down after getting fed up with the public accessing the tree.
Anyway "adopting" a small tree is not the same thing as installing a large steel structure on top of a mountain. When you install some substantial man-made symbol on top of a mountain, it is like planting a flag. It is intended to send out a message. And a flag as, they say, is like a red rag to a bull.

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't support vandalism, I'm just wondering if the people behind this were seeing the act in a different light. I don't agree with what they did but I believe areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures if at all possible.

My apologies. I thought you were approving of it.

I'm not sure if I agree that areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures where possible. I think it totally depends on the area and the structure.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

My apologies. I thought you were approving of it.

I'm not sure if I agree that areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures where possible. I think it totally depends on the area and the structure.

What about this area and this structure?

magicbastarder

what if it was god who thought it was a paltry and rudimentary honour to him; would that count as vandalism?
can an act of god be vandalism, or is it exempt from such a charge?

lazygal

There's a few things God could smite round our way.

looksee

recedite wrote: »

That is a shame. I saw it there, a small hawthorn I think, with lots of little rags tied onto it. There is actually a thread about it, and boards gossip (which may be as truthful as gospel) seems to indicate that the culprit was a local landowner who cut it down after getting fed up with the public accessing the tree.
Anyway "adopting" a small tree is not the same thing as installing a large steel structure on top of a mountain. When you install some substantial man-made symbol on top of a mountain, it is like planting a flag. It is intended to send out a message. And a flag as, they say, is like a red rag to a bull.

I don't think the argument about the actual object is relevant, the point is that someone chose to inflict their preference/belief/whatever on everyone else.

I could personally prefer if people did not put crosses or similar on mountain tops, but I would not consider myself free to knock them down just because I did not like them. I am not particularly enthusiastic about the local grotto, but it is there and i would not dream of vandalising it.

expectationlost

looksee wrote: »

I don't think the argument about the actual object is relevant, the point is that someone chose to inflict their preference/belief/whatever on everyone else.

you seem to have more information on this then the rest of us

EoghanIRL

shruikan2553 wrote: »

In my school we were taught this is how it is, God is real and anyone who says otherwise was wrong. Catholicism is right and this is what we believe.

If we look at this we have the teaching of something while the person being taught isnt meant to question or critically examine it. If only we had a word to describe that.

Brain washing ?

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:


I) after hours charter is not a and a. Your link is pointless.
ii) This is back seat moderation. Something you've been warned about before. Given the context I'm letting it slide but be advised I have no obligation to do so. To borrow from your own hyperlink that would mean your post warranted a card.
iii) I do feel you have a legitimate grievance. Not the way to go about resolving it and you're here long enough to know that.
So how bout Rob apologies to you?
You apologies to me.
We both share our biscuits and express our anger at the removal of the jelly star?

I have had my Mcvities and made my apology....

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

I have had my Mcvities

You never shared!

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't support vandalism, I'm just wondering if the people behind this were seeing the act in a different light. I don't agree with what they did but I believe areas of natural beauty should be free from man made structures if at all possible.

Man-made structures are common on Irish mountains - cairns are the most commonly found, in my experience, followed by telecommunications installations of one kind or another, trig points, individual monuments, religious monuments and the odd passage grave. Crosses probably form a fairly small proportion of the total of summit structures, but of course they form part of a broader European mountaineering tradition in which crosses are common.

If we have never become exercised about any other structures on mountain tops, but suddenly get excited about a cross, is it really the amenity of the areas of natural beauty that is motivating us?

looksee

expectationlost wrote: »

you seem to have more information on this then the rest of us

There seems to be an echo in here.

That is the second time you have said that with no explanation. Saying something twice does not make it any more intelligent/valid/understandable.

PopePalpatine

Turtwig wrote: »

You never shared!

Sharing is for the weak, according to the Gospel of Rand.

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Man-made structures are common on Irish mountains - cairns are the most commonly found, in my experience, followed by telecommunications installations of one kind or another, trig points, individual monuments, religious monuments and the odd passage grave. Crosses probably form a fairly small proportion of the total of summit structures, but of course they form part of a broader European mountaineering tradition in which crosses are common.

If we have never become exercised about any other structures on mountain tops, but suddenly get excited about a cross, is it really the amenity of the areas of natural beauty that is motivating us?

This is true. There is a hill near where I live and there is a cross there, from 1951 or 1952. There is also a trig station which is pretty unobtrusive. The cross itself represents (to me) a previous generation. I don't have a problem with it at all. However if today, in 2014, somebody wanted to build a similar sized cross on the adjacent hill, I would object. Why? Because it wouldn't represent me, and it would symbolise (in my head anyway) somebody trying to bring us back to the values of the 1950s.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

I don't think the argument about the actual object is relevant, the point is that someone chose to inflict their preference/belief/whatever on everyone else.

You mean by plant a large metal cross on top of a mountain, yes?

MrP

looksee

MrPudding wrote: »

You mean by plant a large metal cross on top of a mountain, yes?

MrP

The time to object was before the cross was placed originally. Now if you want to object do it through proper channels.

People object to windmills being placed around the countryside, does that make it ok to chop them down? Is it ok to demolish churches or take crosses out of graveyards? If you do not like the mosque or synagogue in your town can you demolish it?

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

The time to object was before the cross was placed originally. Now if you want to object do it through proper channels.

People object to windmills being placed around the countryside, does that make it ok to chop them down? Is it ok to demolish churches or take crosses out of graveyards? If you do not like the mosque or synagogue in your town can you demolish it?

I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of cutting the cross down. Your point was that someone "[...]chose to inflict their preference/belief/whatever on everyone else." It seems that you have the standard theist attitude that as long at it is your 'preference/belief/whatever' being inflicted, there is no problem. How long ago it was done or, that some arbitrary period during which an objection can lodged has lapsed, takes nothing away from the fact that the erecting of the cross in the first place was an example of someone inflicting their 'preference/belief/whatever' on everyone else. Would you not agree?

MrP

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Sharing is for the weak, according to the Gospel of Rand.

There is always one.... :rolleyes:

lazygal

looksee wrote: »

The time to object was before the cross was placed originally. Now if you want to object do it through proper channels.

People object to windmills being placed around the countryside, does that make it ok to chop them down? Is it ok to demolish churches or take crosses out of graveyards? If you do not like the mosque or synagogue in your town can you demolish it?

So once no one objects at the time anything that later becomes offensive has to stay? This is the same excuse used for maintaining religious schools, that the churches set them up and because those of no faith didn't bother to set them up our children can go hang in terms of indoctrination.

riffmongous

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of cutting the cross down. Your point was that someone "[...]chose to inflict their preference/belief/whatever on everyone else." It seems that you have the standard theist attitude that as long at it is your 'preference/belief/whatever' being inflicted, there is no problem. How long ago it was done or, that some arbitrary period during which an objection can lodged has lapsed, takes nothing away from the fact that the erecting of the cross in the first place was an example of someone inflicting their 'preference/belief/whatever' on everyone else. Would you not agree?

MrP

But since it was installed on private land and isn't visible to anyone who isn't climbing the mountain (with permission) is anything really being inflicted on everyone else?

riffmongous

lazygal wrote: »

So once no one objects at the time anything that later becomes offensive has to stay? This is the same excuse used for maintaining religious schools, that the churches set them up and because those of no faith didn't bother to set them up our children can go hang in terms of indoctrination.

I dont think the point is that things have to stay rather that if you want to get rid of them you do it legally.

swampgas

riffmongous wrote: »

But since it was installed on private land and isn't visible to anyone who isn't climbing the mountain (with permission) is anything really being inflicted on everyone else?

The private land aspect is a red herring, it's not like you need an invite to climb the mountain. There is an argument to be made that the mountain should be owned by the state.

What is strange is how many Irish people seem so unaware of just how much they take for granted - they assume that everyone else is either Catholic, or won't care what Catholics do. There really does seem to be a blind spot when it comes to respecting any other relgious beliefs.

If this was about race, or sexuality, rather than religion, I think more people would stop and think before asking "sure what's the problem - is anything really being inflicted here?".

looksee

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of cutting the cross down. Your point was that someone "[...]chose to inflict their preference/belief/whatever on everyone else." It seems that you have the standard theist attitude that as long at it is your 'preference/belief/whatever' being inflicted, there is no problem. How long ago it was done or, that some arbitrary period during which an objection can lodged has lapsed, takes nothing away from the fact that the erecting of the cross in the first place was an example of someone inflicting their 'preference/belief/whatever' on everyone else. Would you not agree?

MrP

No, I am as stated in other posts, an atheist.

My objection is to anyone unilaterally deciding that they have some sort of right to decide what will or will not be allowed to stand in a public place.

I would prefer, on the whole, no cross, and if it were to be proposed that one should be erected I would vote against it, that does not take away from my argument that individuals cannot be allowed to decide what does and does not get destroyed according to their preferences.

My arguments have nothing to do with religion or absence of it, only to do with public order and vandalism.

riffmongous

swampgas wrote: »

The private land aspect is a red herring, it's not like you need an invite to climb the mountain. There is an argument to be made that the mountain should be owned by the state.

How is it a red herring? I am not 100% certain on this but I would believe access to the mountain could be withdrawn similar to how dogs were banned from the mountain entirely last year. There is definitely an argument that the mountain should be owned by the state but that's a red herring in this case

lazybones32

riffmongous wrote: »

How is it a red herring? I am not 100% certain on this but I would believe access to the mountain could be withdrawn similar to how dogs were banned from the mountain entirely last year. There is definitely an argument that the mountain should be owned by the state but that's a red herring in this case

The Law is 100% behind the landowner and a farmer/landowner can deny access to his/her land without reason. (The old head of kinsale is private property of a golf club.)
7 lawsuits have been brought against landowners by people who injured themselves on their property: 6 found in favour of the landowner and 1 in favour of the hiker - though this was then rejected on appeal. Still, who'd like to be brought to Court for allowing Public access to your lands; even if the odds are in your favour?

The National Parks are the only places where people have the freedom to roam.

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

The Law is 100% behind the landowner and a farmer/landowner can deny access to his/her land without reason.

You realise that if a land owner did have the law technically behind them and they denied access then they'd be total outcry and it would likely end up going to court for such a important access right.

Dogs is one thing, stopping all access is another

curioser

swampgas wrote: »

The private land aspect is a red herring, it's not like you need an invite to climb the mountain. There is an argument to be made that the mountain should be owned by the state.

.

At what altitude might it become mandatory that land be owned by the state?

Cabaal

curioser wrote: »

At what altitude might it become mandatory that land be owned by the state?

you don't think area's of outstanding natural beauty should be run by the state to ensure the public has access to them?

what about history sites?, should we allow Newgrange to be in private hands? How about Kilkenny castle?

a site of importance shouldn't be in private hands, nor should it be modified to promote any specific agenda.

curioser

Cabaal wrote: »

you don't think area's of outstanding natural beauty should be run by the state to ensure the public has access to them?

what about history sites?, should we allow Newgrange to be in private hands? How about Kilkenny castle?

a site of importance shouldn't be in private hands, nor should it be modified to promote any specific agenda.

And the altitude question?

Cabaal

curioser wrote: »

And the altitude question?

its a none question and a silly none question at that because what makes these sites of interest is they are area's of outstanding natural beauty,

Doesn't matter if its 10 feet above sea level, area's of outstanding natural beauty shouldn't be in private ownership.

Username32

Cabaal wrote: »

its a none question and a silly none question at that because what makes these sites of interest is they are area's of outstanding natural beauty,

Doesn't matter if its 10 feet above sea level, area's of outstanding natural beauty shouldn't be in private ownership.

How do you define what's "an area of outstanding beauty".
I suppose you could seek a majority view of such a decision. But you would be imposing this view.
What about the individual who does not share this view?
You impinge on their rights.
Also are you advocating some communist style take over of private land?

recedite

Individual land rights are given up quite frequently "in the public interest" such as when a new road is being built and CPO's are issued. That's not communist at all.
The type of land we are talking about here usually has little or no agricultural value anyway; that's why its often in commonage. Its usually the land that nobody really wanted to live on. The people who had viable farms in the area just put their names down for a share in it.
Very often they sell out to Coillte anyway, which then plants trees on behalf of the state.