cocks. . l; aof Jill.'. Why does everyone defend graffiti, most of it is utter and it is illegal 99% of the time. If someone legally painted on a wall I would applaud it but if it's do
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

cocks

l; aof Jill.'
...

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #1 - jaysnk (09/11/2013) [+] (11 replies)
Its called vandalism
User avatar #2 to #1 - jaevel (09/11/2013) [-]
Yes, I agree on you that painting over such a great artwork is vandalisem
#16 - soundofwinter ONLINE (09/12/2013) [+] (9 replies)
Why does everyone defend graffiti, most of it is utter **** and it is illegal 99% of the time. If someone legally painted on a wall I would applaud it but if it's downright vandalism then I applaud the owners for removing it. I wouldn't want someone painting the side of my home with his name and some strange art I won't pretend to understand. I would call the police if that happened. So why is it so different when it happens to something that doesn't belong to you?
User avatar #33 - tacogrenade (09/12/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Basicly Sums up Funnyjunks ScratchPad room
User avatar #58 - dawggz (09/12/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Ok dude so imagine you bought a house. A really neat house. You paint over with a normal color for 2 days and start living in it and having a family. All of the sudden some guys paint your freaking wall. Of course , maybe the art looks nice, but you didn't want that. Of course you will be frustrated, and paint it over, because its YOUR house and YOUR property.

Stop being hypocrits.
#46 - stepsword (09/12/2013) [+] (1 reply)
This clearly represents the transition from traditional to modern art.
User avatar #51 - highhopes (09/12/2013) [+] (25 replies)
If it's illegal, it's illegal. You can't paint on another people's property.
#20 - devout feminist (09/12/2013) [-]
Judging by the "For Lease" sign, it seems that the following scenario is likely: The original owner was completely okay with the graffiti, but ended up moving, or couldn't afford the building, or something else like that. The landlord, or a realty agent, is now leasing the building, but as it would be harder to lease a building covered in graffiti, even artistic graffiti, they likely painted over it. Completely understandable, for both the original artists (if they got permission from the prior owner / leaseholder), and the person who painted over it. Cock guy, however, is kinda a dick. (you paint what you know...)
#7 - devout feminist (09/11/2013) [+] (1 reply)
i wouldnt want no kids painting on my walls
User avatar #17 to #7 - rhetoricalfunny (09/12/2013) [-]
Then paint over their art

Oh wait

*****
#48 - independantnight (09/12/2013) [-]
Ahg, gods. The bloody bus stop was added after the first picture was taken. I was so very confused for a minute....
#45 - yaybacon (09/12/2013) [+] (1 reply)
That reminded me of when I was passing a train I saw gratified onto it SKYRIM BELONGS TO THE NORDS and STORMCLOAKS ARE THE BEST
User avatar #69 - ubercookieboy (09/12/2013) [+] (1 reply)
You removed the graffiti that I worked long and hard on despite making the premises look like a run down, third rate business/damage your home's property value against your consent therefore I am going to be passive aggressive about this and vandalize your wall again by DRAWING ******* PENISES ALL OVER IT.
#40 - imagnetsux ONLINE (09/12/2013) [-]
#29 - trystanvierra (09/12/2013) [+] (1 reply)
It looks like the wall got a lot less wide in the after shot...
#24 - Lintutu ONLINE (09/12/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Comment Picture
User avatar #23 - anonefgthree (09/12/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Why are you guys defending this ****** ? Sure his art was good, but it's vandalism
User avatar #34 to #23 - bronybox (09/12/2013) [-]
Because now it has ***** on it.
Shoulda' kept the art.
-1
#31 - iamstoopid has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)