• abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It is and I don’t agree with the sentence - way too harsh, especially considering that the art was undamaged.

      That said I feel, while there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art for future generations and the ends do not justify the means - it basically feels like the cause (saving the Earth) wasn’t taken into account here. Also, the “almost” part wasn’t either - they’re treating it like these were vandals who successfully destroyed a valuable work of art forever because they were bored.

      That’s … ridiculous. Especially compared two the guys who got off with a suspended sentence because they beat up a cop or two for fun.

      • Match!!@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        i expect future generations would see any damage to the art as part of its extended story and its place in stopping climate change

          • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Relax. Maybe get off the internet for a minute. If not, actually read the news. They didn’t destroy any art. These paintings are well secured in tamper proof little boxes. They can wipe this shit off or put the art in new ones.

            You are the one succumbing to a false dichotomy here.