'Muricans Destroy 170 Million Year-Old Geological Formation

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Oct 18, 2013.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
  2. sviato macrumors 68020

    sviato

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Location:
    HR 9038 A
  3. thejadedmonkey, Oct 18, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013

    thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #3
    I don't see anything wrong about it. If the rock was that important, there should have been a sign or something. If I saw a rock balanced and thought it was going to come crashing down and hurt someone, I'd probably move it too.

    It's not like we don't already treat the earth like a garbage can. At least they weren't trying to be malicious.

    Edit: Pittsburgh, 1930 around 10:35am, Pacific Ocean
     
  4. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    There are probably a number of rocks that would fall over if pushed.

    Should they have appointed themselves "safety inspectors" of the state park and pushed over all the rocks that were likewise "unsafe"?
     
  5. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #5
    In a state park (which is what Goblin Valley is), taking such action is unwarranted and improper. On the other hand, if the rock was that precarious, they just moved up the timeline for its toppling by a few years, decades or centuries. Not really that big a deal (remember that cliff on the New
    Hampshire quarter that fell down – nature happens). And, in fact, humans are still part of nature. Though that would not stop me from trying to clock those doofuses for being doofuses.
     
  6. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #6
    No, that seems extreme. But if the rock was really that important, there should have been a sign. I wouldn't think twice about moving a dead tree or rock in a state park if I thought it was a hazard to someone.

    As Sydde said above me, if the rock was really that unstable it was a wind storm away from toppling over anyway.

    I'm not saying they should have done it, but I see their logic in their reasoning.
     
  7. Aldaris macrumors 65816

    Aldaris

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake
    #7
    Personally I think it's a lame excuse (most likely not even true). It's not 'their responsibility' to take on safety inspections, but it is just a rock.

    Let nature do it's thing.
     
  8. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #8
    A "windstorm" away? I seriously doubt it was that unstable. I imagine it probably would have stood there for decades. But even if it was "unstable", it should not have been messed with in the name of safety, because parks are not really intended to be safe places.
     
  9. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #9
    A similar thing is happening with the Cahokia Mounds in Southern Illinois. Those things were the Native American equivalent of pyramids and people seem to be content building over them.
     
  10. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    For those who value sources: http://www.cahokiamounds.org/explore/

    Could you please elaborate a bit more?

    Who are the people who "seem to be content building over them"?
     
  11. puma1552 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    #11
    Was it inappropriate to do? Yes.

    Does it really matter? No.

    Should they face felony charges? That's a huge waste of tax dollars.
     
  12. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    Ah. A philosopher.

    Does anything really matter?
     
  13. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #13
    Nobody cares about the preserving old giant rocks. Now destroying the forest and jungles of the world is much more concerning.
     
  14. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    I care. Thus disproving your point.
     
  15. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #15
    And how will preserving one big rock benefit anyone? Especially since there were a ton of other giant rocks in that area formed of the same shape. That was actually a baby giant rock he toppled over. Rocks are last on most people's checklist of preserving.
     
  16. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16

    Seen one redwood tree, seen them all, eh Ronnie?
     
  17. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #17
    I care.
    What they did was wrong.
    They should face consequences for it.
     
  18. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #18
    I think the point was that a tree has a tangible benefit and toppling it over removes the benefit. A rock does not, and toppling a rock onto its side doesn't change any benefit it provided, at most it moves the benefit (shade? a home for a critter?) a few feet.
     
  19. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #19
    Leaving parklands unaltered, so that future generations might enjoy its natural state?

    That's just crazy talk! :rolleyes:
     
  20. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    A downed redwood tree also provides benefit.

    Please tell us ...

    How much "benefit" does a living redwood tree provide?

    How much "benefit" does a downed redwood tree provide?

    I'm not so intelligent to presume to know the difference.

    So I'm not so eager to change the natural state of the tree.
     
  21. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #21


    People do care as not only shown in this thread but the fact that others around the country have an issue with this. This is a state park, effectively destroying park property and on top of that these are Boy Scout leaders acting like children while filming themselves and publishing their ignorance, which in the end will be their down fall. So stating no one cares is clearly wrong.
     
  22. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    The point of parks is to preserve nature, not put up signs everywhere. It would be impossible to put up signs telling people not to harm every important geological formation, and even if it was possible it would ruin them. Plus based on how they were laughing and high fiving after tipping it over I highly doubt that they were actually concerned about safety, it seems to me more like they are a bunch of idiots who decided it would be fun to go knocking over boulders.

    Even if they were worried about people's safety when you go out in nature there are things that are out of your control, you have to learn to deal with that and take responsibility to keep yourself safe without damaging the environment.
     
  23. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #23
    Exactly. At the very most, they should get fined. But criminal charges for a stupid rock that doesn't affect anything but some people's artifact amusement is way over the top.

    When did toppling a rock become damaging the environment?

    I bet if someone found a precious resource like gold in that area, the law would allow a company to topple all of those rocks.
     
  24. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #24
    Uh... Isn't a fine a criminal charge?
    Or did you mean to say incarceration?
    I don't think incarceration is appropriate either.
    But a fine, community service and an essay on their thoughts on preserving natural spaces for future visitors (including a report on what stance the Boy Scouts have on the topic, if any) would be about right, IMO.
     
  25. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #25
    No, it's a civil penalty in most cases.

    In the link, it says they can face felony charges. That's highly ridiculous.
     

Share This Page