There is a great difference between being tempted to do something and actually doing it. Not following your temptations (blindly) would be one of the greatest strengths of men.
To resist a temptation you have to have it in the first place; people who don't have certain temptations don't really get to judge those who didn't resist theirs.
And then there is the fact that "temptation" and "aspiration" are both equally valid to describe anything depending on your personal moral compass. For example, how is being indignated about "criminal vandalism" that nobody directly affected seems to be quite as upset about not a temptation, too?
Graffiti prevents you from looking at the bleak, clean surface. And this has already been cleared up, while graffiti often requires more then a few keystrokes. Graffiti can really destroy surfaces, and they will never be as before. Then there's tagging, which is just the equivalent of dogs peeing everywhere; as opposed to people actually trying to make a statement... to the law that distinction doesn't even exist, to me it does, and it does make a difference.
This is criminal vandalism
Graffiti isn't exactly lawful, so that's quite redundant? Unless of course you wanted to stress that your outrage is completely guided by "is it lawful", as opposed to, say, "is it good".
Oh, and unless you're a student of MIT, or anyone who was actually inconvenienced by this, or at least know someone who was, I really wonder where this is coming from, and where it's supposed to go. I mean sure, by all means criminally persecute a bunch of "children", that surely must be the ticket, that's the lesson here. Lock them away!
