4 ms·

Title is misleading. That's not excess. Excess is dropping $20k on a wedding when you have a mortgage and are only making $50k/yr. What Parker did was tasteles

Title is misleading. That's not excess. Excess is dropping $20k on a wedding when you have a mortgage and are only making $50k/yr. What Parker did was tasteless, but not the worst thing people with money do sometimes.

calinet6 13y ago
It's a slippery slope argument in some ways; sure he can afford it, but if that's the case, should people with means be able to do anything they can afford? Or is there some limit where we can reasonably call it "excess" by nature of it being more than is reasonable for a person to need or desire; even if the excess in question is just disrespect for the conventions. It is an opinionated judgement, but it's not misleading.
- photorized 13y ago
  I am not defending Parker. I saw 'excess' in the headline, I was expecting to see some form of immoderate indulgence. What I saw, was in line with my expectations, unfortunately. The guy's sense of perspective is probably long gone. Disregard for the conventions (and laws) is a different matter though. I hope this goes beyond simple fines.
  - valleyer 13y ago
    So, you’ve tuned your expectations for Parker appropriately. Good. But that doesn’t change the definition of “excess”.
moocow01 13y ago
There are other forms of excess than monetary. Building an environmentally damaging shrine in a protected wildlife zone for a one time event qualifies as excess.
mturmon 13y ago
It was more than tasteless. Doing this seems to have broken civil laws (hence the fine). You have to have permits for any kind of construction like this. You can bet there is no way this would have been permitted. The reason Big Sur is the way it is, is that development has been tightly restricted. In this sense, the construction Parker did was directly counter to the spirit of Big Sur. It's more of a "take only pictures, leave only footprints" kind of place. It's one of the most magical places in the American West.

calinet6 13y ago

It's a slippery slope argument in some ways; sure he can afford it, but if that's the case, should people with means be able to do anything they can afford? Or is there some limit where we can reasonably call it "excess" by nature of it being more than is reasonable for a person to need or desire; even if the excess in question is just disrespect for the conventions. It is an opinionated judgement, but it's not misleading.

photorized 13y ago
I am not defending Parker. I saw 'excess' in the headline, I was expecting to see some form of immoderate indulgence. What I saw, was in line with my expectations, unfortunately. The guy's sense of perspective is probably long gone. Disregard for the conventions (and laws) is a different matter though. I hope this goes beyond simple fines.
- valleyer 13y ago
  So, you’ve tuned your expectations for Parker appropriately. Good. But that doesn’t change the definition of “excess”.

moocow01 13y ago

There are other forms of excess than monetary. Building an environmentally damaging shrine in a protected wildlife zone for a one time event qualifies as excess.

mturmon 13y ago

It was more than tasteless. Doing this seems to have broken civil laws (hence the fine). You have to have permits for any kind of construction like this. You can bet there is no way this would have been permitted. The reason Big Sur is the way it is, is that development has been tightly restricted. In this sense, the construction Parker did was directly counter to the spirit of Big Sur. It's more of a "take only pictures, leave only footprints" kind of place. It's one of the most magical places in the American West.