You can paint wherever you want. But don't be surprised if someone sells it. I would in a heartbeat.

I'm not saying you should be surprised, I'm saying that I think you're a cunt if you do. Paint over it, fine, but selling it is a dick move IMO.

Yoss, your notion that corporations are invading public space is a twisted way of presenting the reality, to suit your argument.  Like it or not, companies have the permissionof the owners of anything their adverts are on.  They don't invade your home, you invite them in by consuming things that carry advertising.  If Banksy and co want to legitimise their statements, they should seek permission.  If there is sufficient audience for those statements, they shouldn't have that much difficulty finding willing canvas owners.

For the record, a corporation has never damaged my property for their gain.

adkm1979 wrote:

Yoss, your notion that corporations are invading public space is a twisted way of presenting the reality, to suit your argument.  Like it or not, companies have the permissionof the owners of anything their adverts are on.  They don't invade your home, you invite them in by consuming things that carry advertising.  If Banksy and co want to legitimise their statements, they should seek permission.  If there is sufficient audience for those statements, they shouldn't have that much difficulty finding willing canvas owners. For the record, a corporation has never damaged my property for their gain.

The simple idea of 'owning' space would be a pretty twisted way of presenting reality to many cultures on earth, and I think our culture would be better if we recognised the ridiculousness of it ourselves.

The rest of the natural world says many cultures should pull their heads out of their arses.

Coke ad during the half time of the play offs. To the lass who has a coke to share with her imaginary boyfriend, I am Frederick III. Your boyfriend is no longer imaginary.

Nope it's aimed solely at people just over the border.

That's not necessarily true at all. Anthropomorphising animals into being owners of things is misleading.

I love that, when people can't stand to accept the facts in front of them, they claim that we can't anthropomorphise animals.  No, I can't claim to know what's going on in every animal's head, but I can note that animals (and plants) behave in a certain manner, and that that behaviour is exhibited by humans who are, shock horror, animals.

When they rip each other apart over food, or because one entered another's nest to take the food they'd stored, that's about as basic a notion of property ownership you'll find.  Stop thinking that being human makes you magical.

Who said anything like that? You can do it all you like. But it's misleading. Claiming legal ownership of property and the right to buy and sell that it entails hasn't that much of a connection to animals killing each other over food.

Not really, the point being argued was the right to buy and sell a piece of property and by proxy the moral and legal right involved in this. There are differing views on this. It is not simply a case of saying animals kill each other therefore I can sell my wall.

Any human behaviour is justified if you can find some equivalent in the animal kingdom?

Only animal cruely. And advertising.

In that case, the next time a lion sells on a piece of territory you can use your 'it's natural' argument to defend property ownership.

Glad we've straightened that one out.

Technically a treepissing is very much a political statement in Lionworld. Not an especially complicated statement but.