Anti HRO Vandalism in Jacksonville's Five Points Area

[FlaBoy]

Can you vandalize vandalism? 

[sinpantalones]

Who uses which bathroom is kind of..whatever..ok.

What should be writ in stone should be:

-wash your damn hands humans.
-flush the commode you heathens.
-no whistling or loudly humming any tune at any time.
-please do not stop in front of my stall while wearing large clown shoes and giggling menacingly at Joker Joe's Truck Stop at 3:15am...just stop.

[Adam White]

Can you vandalize vandalism? 

Yes.

[Jimmy]

I can report that the mural/message has been restored to its pristine and awesome conduction.  Nicole and Martin have restored it. 

[Sentient]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/3P_qbaYvk_Q" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/3P_qbaYvk_Q</a>

For those of you who are on bathroom bandwagon, as well-intentioned as you are, you're not protecting your children. You are demanding that police determine a person's gender before they use a particular bathroom.

In this video, a MALE cop or security guard enters the WOMEN'S restroom and demands that a user of that bathroom prove their gender.

This weird bathroom movement, I believe, will absolutely lead to egregious abuses of power. Don't be surprised when you hear more than a few "drop your pants and prove it..." stories as a result.

I personally do not want to live in an environment where my children will be asked to prove their gender by a stranger in an authoritative uniform. I consider that an absolute intrusion into an individual's right to privacy - the fourth amendment.

Soooo much cognitive dissonance in that last sentence...

[AKIRA]

Keeping in mind events like the 9 yo girl nearly killed by the man in a BestBuy (female) restroom a couple years ago, it will be a tricky game figuring out who "legitimately" belongs in the restroom and who does not...

[Adam White]

Keeping in mind events like the 9 yo girl nearly killed by the man in a BestBuy (female) restroom a couple years ago, it will be a tricky game figuring out who "legitimately" belongs in the restroom and who does not...

Kind of like driving a car. We all assume that other drivers on the road are properly licensed.

[marty904]

Why don't we just make all bathroom unisex?  I mean, with the stalls, you can't see anything really. We should just put full stalls around the urinals and make all appliances enclosed and make all bathrooms unisex.  I can't remember the last time I was in a restroom and saw another dude's schlong, it's not like a locker room...

And as far as kids getting hurt by adults - well, there are as many female adult wackos out there as there are male so how about just don't let your young kids go into public restrooms alone?

[FlaBoy]

Can you vandalize vandalism? 

Yes.

How?

[Adam White]

Can you vandalize vandalism? 

Yes.

How?

By vandalizing it.

[FlaBoy]

Can you vandalize vandalism? 

Yes.

How?

By vandalizing it.

Isn't it all just vandalism? A guy lost his job over this?

[Adam White]

Can you vandalize vandalism? 

Yes.

How?

By vandalizing it.

Isn't it all just vandalism? A guy lost his job over this?

Are you under the impression that a public art piece is 'vandalism'?

And if so, exactly how did you pass your bar exam?

Even if it were (in this case, it clearly wasn't), that doesn't mean that it isn't art. Vandalism can be art. And vandalism of art can be art.

[FlaBoy]

Can you vandalize vandalism? 

Yes.

How?

By vandalizing it.

Isn't it all just vandalism? A guy lost his job over this?

Are you under the impression that a public art piece is 'vandalism'?

And if so, exactly how did you pass your bar exam?

Even if it were (in this case, it clearly wasn't), that doesn't mean that it isn't art. Vandalism can be art. And vandalism of art can be art.

I dont disagree, just addressing the underlying absurdity.

Even if the wall had still been a designated public art piece, (which it was for a couple of weeks) the wall, and various graffiti wasn't 'vandalism'.  Its a fundamentally inane argument.

In reality land, the wall was no longer a free public art space, due to the city interfering in that project.

Both the original free space, and the mural were done with the express permission of the property owner, which is pretty much the literal opposite of the definition of vandalism.  And Flaboy, as an attorney in waiting should know this basic distinction. How can you legally know when something is legal seems to be the more operative question here.

LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?

[Adam White]

I dont disagree, just addressing the underlying absurdity.

Even if the wall had still been a designated public art piece, (which it was for a couple of weeks) the wall, and various graffiti wasn't 'vandalism'.  Its a fundamentally inane argument.

In reality land, the wall was no longer a free public art space, due to the city interfering in that project.

Both the original free space, and the mural were done with the express permission of the property owner, which is pretty much the literal opposite of the definition of vandalism.  And Flaboy, as an attorney in waiting should know this basic distinction. How can you legally know when something is legal seems to be the more operative question here.

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I figured you got that, too. I was just piling on!

[Bewler]

LOL. Was it done with the consent of the owner of the property originally?

The article says it was.

"The man vandalized a public art project sponsored by the owner of the building, arts advocate Steve Williams"