2 ms·

>>When a billionaire's yacht causes a historical bridge to be dismantled you are degrading yourself, it debases the city. I don't think we're ever going to agr

>>When a billionaire's yacht causes a historical bridge to be dismantled you are degrading yourself, it debases the city. I don't think we're ever going to agree on this. Imagine the bridge had to be dismantled to move a large wind turbine part instead - would that change your view of the whole thing? If yes, why? The people building yachts run a business - dismantling the bridge allows them to complete the sale. If city of Rotterdam doesn't want their historical bridge dismantled then it simply....shouldn't have allowed for the project to go ahead. Simple as that. But even if it did, I don't see how that's debasing anyone or anything. The bridge will be reassembled as it was and a week later it will be a funny story to tell your friends at best, if you live in the area.

Grustaf 5y ago
Clearly you are missing my point. I am not saying it's bad economics. And yes, a wind turbine would be seen as a less frivolous reason to take down the bridge. Do you really not understand that most people are more sympathetic towards clean energy than to billionaire toys? You are talking as if everything revolved around money, but money is only a means to an end, and it's not the only measure of things. You also seem to think that legality is the only measure of good and bad. > If city of Rotterdam doesn't want their historical bridge dismantled then it simply....shouldn't have allowed for the project to go ahead. Yes, the entire point is that they _should have_ said no.
- bennyelv 5y ago
  Shipyards will build a range of different vessels. In your mind would it be ok for them to accept a contract to build a tanker instead? If so, why does the purpose or owner of the ship matter? Is it not just a shipyard building ships?
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    We are not discussing if shipyards should build ships for billionaires, obviously there's nothing wrong with that.

Grustaf 5y ago

Clearly you are missing my point. I am not saying it's bad economics. And yes, a wind turbine would be seen as a less frivolous reason to take down the bridge. Do you really not understand that most people are more sympathetic towards clean energy than to billionaire toys? You are talking as if everything revolved around money, but money is only a means to an end, and it's not the only measure of things. You also seem to think that legality is the only measure of good and bad. > If city of Rotterdam doesn't want their historical bridge dismantled then it simply....shouldn't have allowed for the project to go ahead. Yes, the entire point is that they _should have_ said no.

bennyelv 5y ago
Shipyards will build a range of different vessels. In your mind would it be ok for them to accept a contract to build a tanker instead? If so, why does the purpose or owner of the ship matter? Is it not just a shipyard building ships?
- Grustaf 5y ago
  We are not discussing if shipyards should build ships for billionaires, obviously there's nothing wrong with that.