3 ms·

Yes, not everything is worth preserving. Space and resources are limited.

• claytongulick 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure the ISIS folks would agree [1]. Or would you argue that their beliefs are wrong, and yours are right, so it's ok then? Pretty sure they'd make a similar argument. Or we could just... not destroy things? [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2017/11/ancient-sites-damaged-and-destroyed-by-isis https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisatio...
  • samirillian 4y ago
    Let me get this straight. The hill you're dying on is never destroy anything under any circumstances, no matter how useless, aesthetically repulsive, or morally reprehensible, because those things are merely subjective, but not destroying things is objective. So like a Nazi furry Funko pop, we can't get rid of that.
    • claytongulick 4y ago
      > The hill you're dying on is never destroy anything under any circumstances, no matter how useless, aesthetically repulsive, or morally reprehensible, because those things are merely subjective, but not destroying things is objective. Cool strawman! Here, I can do it too: Why do you feel the need to be the ministry of truth and right-think, destroying and silencing anything that violates your "modern" sensibilities, regardless of it's historical significance?
      • samirillian 4y ago
        It's not a strawman, it's a reductio ad absurdum.