 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
718 online
Server Time:
2024-05-15 17:42:44
|
|
|
 Stalker
   
Location: Hamilton
Your Resident Red Commie Bastard
 |  | Re: The Ethics of Stealing [was: Hamilton spectator article.]
<Reply # 140 on 8/20/2004 3:57 AM >
|  | | | There is no black and white in life. I guess many people who clam there is either too young or still have teenage maximalism. First step is to get a color tv and take a look at the world and realize that 10 commandments are just a guidelines. It's much easier to be an angel or evil then human being. Normally people who trying to be first 2 have some serious issues. Being human being is extremely hard takes a lot of planning and thinking and sometimes you have to make hard decisions. You basing your decisions on YOUR OWN ethics you develop over life time . Ethics and morals is always changing process. It can't be picked from the book or preached to you by Sunday morning priest at your local church. That’s will be someone else ethics.
I think taking stuff from abandoned buildings is not good. I'm not calling it stealing and I'm not calling the person a thief in this situation because it really sounds a childish thing to do. Remember public school. Every class had a resident fatass, punk and other types of nicknames. They were made to piss of the poor fatass guy. Let's not call other people a childish names because it looks like what this topic is all about.
But if you still want to take something from abandoned place. Just stop and think. Is this action will cuz some problem. Is it will destroy a character of the building. and etc.
P.S. If you take stuff from active places - yes you're the thief.
Peace
|
|
uem-Tux
 
Iron Wok Jan
Location: Montreal
Gender: Male
UE Geek
| |  |  | Re: The Ethics of Stealing [was: Hamilton spectator article.]
<Reply # 141 on 8/20/2004 4:13 AM >
|  | | | Posted by MatC
Is anyone who has ever stolen anything automatically a thief for good? What if they change their ways? And what if they change their ways for a short time, but then relapse? Are they a thief, and then an explorer, and then a thief again? Is being a thief only a state of mind?
|
First of all I'd just like to say that my definition of "thief" is flexible. When I say "thief" in this thread, I mean someone who steals without considering the impact of that theft. I definitely see that some stealing can be harmless, and I can even admit that for some people it could enhance the experience to have something to take home. What I'm primarily opposed to are people taking character-adding artifacts from places for themselves.
I'm pushing a strict standard of conduct for urban explorers because I believe that the subjectivity of what does and does not constitute a character-adding artifact can definitely have a negative impact on UE as a whole. What is useless trash to someone like Mike Dijital might be a favourite artefact to someone like me.
The examples you list in your post are excellent examples of why maybe having a single rigid rule that seperates the "true explorers" from the "thieves" isn't such a great idea. I think you've convinced me on that score. We can't just cut a swath through our ranks in that way.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think responsible pilfering of souvenirs is possible in theory, but not possible in the real world, where we have guys like Mike Dijital auctioning off things he stole for profit.
My original response was to just "cut out the tumor" and try to get UE and theft as far away from each other as possible... but I don't want my solution to alienate explorers who have stolen in the past, or who've taken harmless items like business cards...
Maybe we can't say "you're an explorer" and "you're not an explorer" based on that person's behaviour, but I think we have a responsibility to other explorers, and to the places we explore, to leave things as untouched as possible. Our entire jutification for breaking the law in trespassing is that we don't do any other harm. By stealing, we undermine ourselves, and I think it should be strongly discouraged. (Especially with so many new people getting into exploring)
I really think that presenting a united face to the outside world is the only way we're going to avoid more negative publicity in the media.
Urban Exploration Montreal
Why are you the way that you are? |
|
dsankt
Location: live and in the fresh
| |  | | Re: The Ethics of Stealing [was: Hamilton spectator article.]
<Reply # 142 on 8/21/2004 1:48 AM >
| | | | Wow, a bunch of criminals sitting around throwing shit at each other. In the eyes of the law we are all guilty of something. Guilty of trespassing already, and some people theft and vandalism as well. Did you climb in a broken window to explore/experience/photograph the building? If so you just added b&e to the list. Either way, as the law see it, you're already a criminal. The explanation and justification is irrelevant.
However explorers are still doing it. Still going the places they tell us not to. Straight away that says "My personal morals/ethics/ideals are more important than what the trespass law states I can or cannot do". You aren't disregarding the entire law on trespass, you just think the existing laws cannot be uniformly applied to all the situations they seem to cover.
So in relation to theft how can the "it's illegal" arguement be applied to a group that already ignores laws they disagree with? It's hypocritial use a 'legal' arguement while you yourself are putting your own ideals above the law. (I'm sure someone will bring up murder, rape etc. It is irrelevant. The principle is that if you ignore the laws when it suits you, you cannot credibly damn someone else who does.)
I liked the $20 on the ground example. If you've ever found and kept any money then you've decided the money is more important to you than it is to the rightful owner. Here in Australia I believe you are legally obligated to turn any found money into the police. If noone claims it in a certain period then you are entitled to it. So if you've ever pulled a dirty wet, $5 note out of the mud in a building and kept it, you're a thief. What am I saying? Like the trespass laws, I dont think they law regarding theft can be universally applied. Moving on...
This of course leads to the ethical discussionl. Ethics are entirely subjective, and basically unique to each person. What one person decides is okay, other people find offensive and wrong. I know plenty of people who disagree with UE because: "You don't own the buildings you explore, you have no right to be there. Just because the owners have left it empty doesn't give you permission to be there. How would you like it if I came into your house because I could?". They are perfectly entitled to their set of ethics and their opinion, I just don't agree with it. Is Joe Sixpack who dislikes UE from an ethical perspective any different to the UErs who disagree with theft on an ethics basis? It's ethics, and not absolute.
The most logical arguements I've seen in the 8 pages is 'cause and effect'. The obvious ones every has stated about
1. stealing is more likely to get the location locked up
2. stealing gives UE a bad image.
3. stealing robs future explorers of seeing the object
I agree with all these reasons. If the explorers before you had looted everything in sight there would be nothing for you to see. If they had tagged and vandalised sensitive locations they would be locked up and you'd never get to see them. I believe you have a duty of care to the explorers who follow you, to preserve things so others can see them. However, what if they building is about to be demolited? How does that cool trinket benefit anyone if it's buried below 10 meteres of rubble and debris? My response is: If it will get the location locked up or deprive future explores, then don't do it.
Lastly...
I've found that most people who get into urbex are little wierd, headstrong, independent and usually take offence at being told what to do. I see UE as an intrinsicaly non-conformist hobby which consequently attracts people with that disposition. Attempting to strongarm them into a common mould doesn't work. I've always found the more you try and force your ideas onto someone else the stronger they will resist. If you deliver your ideas amidst a tirade of abuse, flaming and insults then you are even less likely to get your point across. State your point concisely and logically, and don't get caught up in the bitching and flaming.
I've told people before that I won't explore with them because I disagree with the way they operate. Why be grouped with people who are only going to get you into trouble? You cannot stop them, so at least distance yourself from them. The best you can do is set a good example, and explore with the people who have similar ideas to yourself. This and leading from the front is all I think you can really do. Fuck that was a mission.
dsankt
[spelling]
[last edit 8/21/2004 1:50 AM by dsankt - edited 1 times]
sleepycity.net: watch out for the third rail baby, that shit is high voltage. urbex and urban exploration photography |
|
Downtown D-Low Brown
Location: The Ill Noize.
Gender: Male
The game is the game.
| | | Re: The Ethics of Stealing [was: Hamilton spectator article.]
<Reply # 143 on 8/21/2004 5:51 PM >
|  | | | To me moral consistency is the main thing, not what you consider right or wrong. Practice what you preach. Don't say you don't take things and then cart off with even so much as a scrap from a site. If other people catch you, now not only by your defintion are you a thief, but a hypocrite as well, and no one likes that.
In short, don't try to be Mother Teresa one moment and Hitler the next. Set your limits, establish boundries, and stick to them.
~D
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
|
|
MatC
Nobler Donor
Location: ENY
Gender: Male
Accepted everywhere
| | | Re: The Ethics of Stealing [was: Hamilton spectator article.]
<Reply # 144 on 8/22/2004 2:29 AM >
| | | | Posted by dsankt
Either way, as the law see it, you're already a criminal. The explanation and justification is irrelevant.
|
I don't like the argument that, "we already do one thing that's illegal, so it's pointless (and even hypocritical) to talk about how we shouldn't do something else illegal too." I don't like it because it presumes that the criminal code is not cumulative (as in, if brought before a judge, you will be charged only with "wrongdoing" and not specific cumulative charges of "trespassing AND theft AND destruction of property.")
Furthermore, it's not hypocritical to balk at stealing from a site because "it's illegal," because not only is there a formal hierarchy of laws (ticketable offenses vs. misdemeanors vs. felonies, etc.) but there is also an informal hierarchy of laws, as any close reading of this forum will demonstrate. If a cop comes upon an explorer in some abandoned building and the explorer is very obviously taking only pictures, is taking steps to protect him/herself (respirator, flashlight, proper clothing, etc.) and the explorer is acting contrite, it's much easier (and, some would argue, appropriate) for the cop to send the explorer on his/her way with a warning than to write up an actual citation.
One reason for this is because, let's be honest, one of the reasons for trespassing law is because people can't be trusted not to hurt themselves in abandoned or unsafe buildings. People are sue-happy, and if it were okay to go anywhere one pleased, then there would be a lot of property owners being sued unnecessarily. So trespassing law is partially (but not totally) a law to protect people from themselves.
This is not true with theft, which is a law to protect people from one another. Theft is a crime against another person since you're taking things for yourself which do not belong to you. So in that way it is much more important for the police to pursue crimes involving theft, since there is an actual injured party, whereas with trespassing law it is arguable that there is often not a person who has been directly harmed.
And this is not intended to exonerate myself from trespassing charges by simply saying, "I wasn't harming anybody." I am fully aware that when I explore a building which does not belong to me, I am in violation of the law and I should be prepared to face the consequences of my actions. I just want to make the point that pure legality is not always the be-all and end-all in these types of discussions, and it certainly is not the only factor when the rubber hits the road and the law is actually carried out by peace officers.
Posted by dsankt
(I'm sure someone will bring up murder, rape etc. It is irrelevant. The principle is that if you ignore the laws when it suits you, you cannot credibly damn someone else who does.)
|
Just by bringing up an argument someone else will make doesn't mean you have offered an appropriate counter-argument to it and therefore removed it from consideration. As I mentioned above, there are levels of legality, both formally and informally. While I agree with you that, legally, one who commits any misdemeanor is the same as anyone else who commits any other misdemeanor, it is simplistic to look at things only from a legal perspective, since that has nothing to do with how the real world works. Therefore, as I mentioned above, it is completely appropriate for people to use legal arguments against theft.
Posted by dsankt
Ethics are entirely subjective, and basically unique to each person. What one person decides is okay, other people find offensive and wrong.
|
Ethics may be unique, but that doesn't mean they are not similar among groups of people. You can't simply dimiss ethics by saying, "nobody has the same ethics as anyone else, so it's pointless to discuss them," because nobody has exactly the same thoughts as anyone else, but that doesn't invalidate psychology, nor does anyone have the same aesthetics as anyone else, but that doesn't make art useless. Instead, the individual differences demonstrate why and how the larger whole exists and evolves.
Posted by dsankt
I believe you have a duty of care to the explorers who follow you, to preserve things so others can see them. However, what if they building is about to be demolited?
|
So it's only okay to steal if a building is about to be demolished for good? Okay.
How soon is it okay to do this -- as soon as the demolition is announced? A month before? A week? Only when the demolition crew is on site? When does it become open season on UE artifacts? Again, I don't want to seem like a jerk for making a list like this, but I think it's important that people examine the things they believe. I agree with you that it seems too bad that cool things get buried or carted away to a landfill when buildings get destroyed, but I am not comfortable with answering the questions I asked above, and that's why I keep out of it entirely by deciding to set the absolute principle of not stealing. Besides, this very narrow definition of when stealing might or might not be okay doesn't apply to the majority of sites, since they are not in danger of being demolished anytime soon, so it still leaves a very wide hole to be filled in the ethical tapestry of UE. As I said, I fill this hole by simply saying that I will not steal, and sticking to it. I am interested, though, to hear how other people approach the situation and, as D-Funked pointed out, remain consistent... or if they remain consistent at all.
Posted by dsankt
If you deliver your ideas amidst a tirade of abuse, flaming and insults then you are even less likely to get your point across. State your point concisely and logically, and don't get caught up in the bitching and flaming.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
-- Mat
"We shall not cease from exploration / And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time."
- T.S. Eliot, excerpt from "Little Gidding" |
|
dsankt
Location: live and in the fresh
| | | | Re: The Ethics of Stealing [was: Hamilton spectator article.]
<Reply # 145 on 8/22/2004 5:08 AM >
| | | |
Posted by MatC
I don't like the argument that, "we already do one thing that's illegal, so it's pointless (and even hypocritical) to talk about how we shouldn't do something else illegal too." I don't like it because it presumes that the criminal code is not cumulative (as in, if brought before a judge, you will be charged only with "wrongdoing" and not specific cumulative charges of "trespassing AND theft AND destruction of property.")
|
I was attempting to say that we see trespass as a law that shouldn't really apply here. People who take stuff from locations see stealing laws as ones that shouldn't really apply tere either. Citing laws to people who already ignore them seems non-productive.
Furthermore, it's not hypocritical to balk at stealing from a site because "it's illegal," because not only is there a formal hierarchy of laws (ticketable offenses vs. misdemeanors vs. felonies, etc.) but there is also an informal hierarchy of laws, as any close reading of this forum will demonstrate.
|
So the informal hierarchy is the slack created by the inability of the authorities to uniformally apply and enforce the laws? In this situation I don't think the hierarchy of laws has anything to do with it. I doubt most people even know which category has which offences in it. Because the law has placed crimes into a particular order of severity, doesn't mean each person will order them similarly. You can call someone out on a law they've broken because it's 'worse' than a law you're breaking but they might not put the same importance on the laws that you do. In this respect the legal system provides an object referce to severity
One reason for this is because, let's be honest, one of the reasons for trespassing law is because people can't be trusted not to hurt themselves in abandoned or unsafe buildings. People are sue-happy, and if it were okay to go anywhere one pleased, then there would be a lot of property owners being sued unnecessarily. So trespassing law is partially (but not totally) a law to protect people from themselves.
|
The trespass laws existed long before the sue-happy culture became so pronounced. If someone came uninvited into my house or property I would feel pretty damn deprived of my privacy, my security and invasion of any personal objects. Of course if the person has left their building open, empty and disused then you could logically (not legally) argue they don't care about people coming and going. With the disused building situation I agree that negligence and sue-ism is probably at the forefront of the owners mind.
Just by bringing up an argument someone else will make doesn't mean you have offered an appropriate counter-argument to it and therefore removed it from consideration.
|
It's not a counter arguement. It's a fuck off to they typical knee-jerk 'what about in this extraordinary circumstance... if.. if.. if..' I was expecting to receive. I am pleasantly surprised I haven't
simplistic to look at things only from a legal perspective, since that has nothing to do with how the real world works. Therefore, as I mentioned above, it is completely appropriate for people to use legal arguments against theft.
|
I think the legal perspective is a bad way to look at it. It's hard to understand (unless you're a lawyer), not equally applied and has so many variables. It is tangled with the ethical perspective (is it okay if.... or if... what about if....) as well. Lastly the people involved put their own needs above the law when it suits them. For all those reasons I don't think looking at it from a legal perspective is useful in this instance.
Ethics may be unique, but that doesn't mean they are not similar among groups of people. You can't simply dimiss ethics by saying, "nobody has the same ethics as anyone else, so it's pointless to discuss them," because nobody has exactly the same thoughts as anyone else, but that doesn't invalidate psychology
|
Arguing ethics is difficult because there are so many variables, and everyone begins with a different definition. It's not pointless to discuss, but I think it's difficult to change someone's ethics by simply talking about it. Seeing the negative effects of your actions (based on your ethics) is a lot more conducive to change than someone over the net telling you what they believe is ethical behaviour. Especially in a confrontational environment.
So it's only okay to steal if a building is about to be demolished for good? Okay.
How soon is it okay to do this -- as soon as the demolition is announced? A month before? A week? Only when the demolition crew is on site? When does it become open season on UE artifacts? Again, I don't want to seem like a jerk for making a list like this, but I think it's important that people examine the things they believe. I agree with you that it seems too bad that cool things get buried or carted away to a landfill when buildings get destroyed, but I am not comfortable with answering the questions I asked above, and that's why I keep out of it entirely by deciding to set the absolute principle of not stealing.
|
I'm not saying its okay to loot buildings abuot to be demolited, I'm simplly throwing variables into the mix. You're not being a jerk, you're giving food for thought. If it was all simple and obvious this thread wouldn't have made it this far. There is no answer to the 'when' question, how long does it take before it is obvious that noone else has interest in the object? How long does it take before the public has no interest in empty buildings? When is it okay to begin exploring a site? You can't quantify it easily.
Besides 'when', what part does intention play in it? If you're taking stuff for presevation is that more justifed than taking stuff to make a cool [something]. How much history is preserved in our museums that otherwise would have been lost if noone had taken it? (I'm asking, I don't really know). While I'm sure very little found in an empty building is museum worthy, this stuff is important to *us*. Peronally I like to document the places I go by taking photos, not by hording things
Tooo long... must escape puter screen. aaaargggh
dsankt
sleepycity.net: watch out for the third rail baby, that shit is high voltage. urbex and urban exploration photography |
|
IIVQ
  
Location: La Sud-Est du cité majeur du North-Holland (Bijlmer), .NL
Gender: Male
Back in Urbex!
| | |  | | Re: The Ethics of Stealing [was: Hamilton spectator article.]
<Reply # 146 on 8/23/2004 11:33 AM >
| | | | Posted by dsankt
I'm not saying its okay to loot buildings abuot to be demolited, I'm simplly throwing variables into the mix. You're not being a jerk, you're giving food for thought. If it was all simple and obvious this thread wouldn't have made it this far. There is no answer to the 'when' question, how long does it take before it is obvious that noone else has interest in the object? How long does it take before the public has no interest in empty buildings? When is it okay to begin exploring a site? You can't quantify it easily.
Besides 'when', what part does intention play in it? If you're taking stuff for presevation is that more justifed than taking stuff to make a cool [something]. How much history is preserved in our museums that otherwise would have been lost if noone had taken it? (I'm asking, I don't really know). While I'm sure very little found in an empty building is museum worthy, this stuff is important to *us*. Peronally I like to document the places I go by taking photos, not by hording things
|
Start your own museum (of Industrial Architecture), then as soon as any property is being listed for demolition, ask the owner for permission to search the location and document it (after signing no-sue papers), then show him the pictures asking if you could salvage these items.
No laws broken at all, not even trespass.
Tijmen (President of the MoIA, Kanne, Belgium)
Posted by MapMan | 18/9/2005 19:25 | Hedy Lamarr made porn?
Posted by turbozutek | 20/9/2005 2:29 | Dude, educate us! |
|
Jules Verne
Location: Manchester, UK
Gender: Male
| | Re: The Ethics of Stealing [was: Hamilton spectator article.]
<Reply # 147 on 8/23/2004 1:32 PM >
| | | |
form your own non-secret club??
|
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 250 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741843103 pages have been generated.
|
|
