4 ms·

The "hungry" looters getting food by selling them is a much better outcome then the rich "gentleman" taking pleasure by seeing them in a museum. Just because on

The "hungry" looters getting food by selling them is a much better outcome then the rich "gentleman" taking pleasure by seeing them in a museum. Just because one won the genetic lottery by being born in a richer nation doesn't mean their entertainment has more value than the food of "hungry" looters, who too are human beings.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? But a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? That's what I mean by 'PC'. One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them. One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
- enitihas 6y ago
  Sure, if a national treasure is found below your home, you think it's okay to kick you out without any compensation, because history >> individuals? Do you want to share the natural resources of your own nation with others for free? If not, how on earth is it OK to snatch that of others from them, just because they fit your historical curiosity? This is basically saying we are superior people, and we need to keep things away from the hand of barbarians.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Ok now that's just putting words in mouths. I have a policy of not feeding trolls.
- testbot123 6y ago
  > So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? No. But two wrongs don't make a right. > a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? When the thieves illegally steal a nation's artifacts and illegally sell them to a private buyer? Yes. > One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil. ... he said, from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Not fair! I'm not suggesting a course of action, or passing judgement on the right solution; that is squarly with responders here. I simply observe, the 'right' action will likely result in the destruction/loss of more antiquities. Which is amply supportable by history, recent and ancient.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- serf 6y ago
  >One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them. you paint an unfair picture. you fail to mention that, in the case of this argument at least, preserving the artifact by means of foreign intervention may very well result in the starvation of the would-be local thieves. many would argue that the loss of any human life is greater than the loss of all the world's artifacts. It isn't really that unfounded a concept. A well studied and documented artifact has only a specific amount of practical importance, aside from some sort of cultural significance. A human life has an unknown future, be it good or evil -- and unlimited (human) possibility if given the opportunities. It's a fairly simple value proposition when simplified unreasonably this way : "Do you let another human die for the sake of storing an already studied artifact in a location where the object is safer?"

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? But a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? That's what I mean by 'PC'. One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them. One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.

enitihas 6y ago
Sure, if a national treasure is found below your home, you think it's okay to kick you out without any compensation, because history >> individuals? Do you want to share the natural resources of your own nation with others for free? If not, how on earth is it OK to snatch that of others from them, just because they fit your historical curiosity? This is basically saying we are superior people, and we need to keep things away from the hand of barbarians.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Ok now that's just putting words in mouths. I have a policy of not feeding trolls.
testbot123 6y ago
> So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? No. But two wrongs don't make a right. > a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? When the thieves illegally steal a nation's artifacts and illegally sell them to a private buyer? Yes. > One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil. ... he said, from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Not fair! I'm not suggesting a course of action, or passing judgement on the right solution; that is squarly with responders here. I simply observe, the 'right' action will likely result in the destruction/loss of more antiquities. Which is amply supportable by history, recent and ancient.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
serf 6y ago
>One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them. you paint an unfair picture. you fail to mention that, in the case of this argument at least, preserving the artifact by means of foreign intervention may very well result in the starvation of the would-be local thieves. many would argue that the loss of any human life is greater than the loss of all the world's artifacts. It isn't really that unfounded a concept. A well studied and documented artifact has only a specific amount of practical importance, aside from some sort of cultural significance. A human life has an unknown future, be it good or evil -- and unlimited (human) possibility if given the opportunities. It's a fairly simple value proposition when simplified unreasonably this way : "Do you let another human die for the sake of storing an already studied artifact in a location where the object is safer?"