Re: feelings vs facts | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by thesweetcheat

Trespass on SSSI sites

Mustard Sep 5, 2012 10:02:22

Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:

"If a handful of people that care enough want to surreptitiously visit Skara Brae, it's not going to cause any problems."

So if there's no erosion of the monument then erosion of the rules is OK?

Thats the very crux of the issue and I strongly disagree.

It is simply impossible for me to say if "I" break the rules at Skara Brae that definitely won't increase the likelihood that a vandal may follow suit. Ergo, neither I nor anyone else should break the rules at Skara Brae - for precisely the same reason, increased risk of damage, that you say people shouldnt break the rules at Silbury.
The safest policy for both places is dont break the rules.

Sorry Nigel, I don't see the world in such black and white terms as you, so we'll have to agree to differ.

Littlestone Sep 5, 2012 11:17:37

Replying to Mustard

Agreeing to differ probably isn’t possible for those who see things in black and white Mr M ;-) The black and white-ers are not only unable to see subtle shades of grey, they’re also totally (colour) blind to the variety of solutions available in an equal variety of situations.

It’s a situation we’re faced with all the time – the pros and cons for and against capital punishment for example, assisted dying, abortion, etc etc. The black and white-ers can’t usually think outside the box. Capital punishment is seen by them in yes or no terms (ditto the two other other situations just mentioned) and they’ve more often than not arrived at their points of view through ignorance or creaking and no-longer relevant religious or moral frameworks.

It’s worth a try though (agreeing to disagree) and you do actually keep the moral high ground in that you’ve admitted the possibility of po (neither yes or no but po).

Maybe I should start a new thread with that title before this one spins out of control :-)