4 ms·

> Having a $4.5 million dollar wedding may be jerky How is that any of anyone's business but his?

• fianchetto 13y ago
  > How is that any of anyone's business but his? He used public land. He made it public.
  • jamesaguilar 13y ago
    It was private land, according to this article.
  • twoodfin 13y ago
    And I bet his guests drove on public roads to get there. Some of them may have even have had public educations! Taking advantage of government services available to everyone does not preclude one from expecting the usual degree of privacy and respect we accord to our fellow citizens.
  • mindcrime 13y ago
    I think it was actually private land, which was simply made accessible to the public under certain conditions. Parker's position is that the campground was temporarily closed anyway, and that his wedding did not deny anybody access who would otherwise have had it.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• pessimizer 13y ago
  It doesn't have to be my business for me to think it's jerky. I'm sure I think things that you're doing in the privacy of your own home, that I will never hear about, are jerky, and vice-versa. Luckily, if it becomes public information, I don't have to ask your permission to either have, or express those feelings.
  • yid 13y ago
    Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion, just the same as I'm entitled to have an acerbic reaction to your value judgement of how people should use their money.
    • pessimizer 13y ago
      I'm not censoring you, I'm answering you.
• greeneggs 13y ago
  There's nothing wrong with judging people based on how they spend their money. There are admirable ways of spending money (such as Parker's "conservation buying") and less admirable ways of spending money. Spend your money as you want, but your spending shows your values. The interesting thing in this case is that Parker himself admits it: "Finally, you mention that what we did was 'extravagant' yet none of the usual tasteless crap that rich people do at their weddings was present here — no ice sculptures, no caviar, no pop stars hired to sing their hits songs, etc. This is why your article and so many other articles have been so deeply offensive." The reason people would find spending $4.5 million on ice sculptures (for example) offensive or tasteless is that a huge amount of human time and effort would be expended on something completely temporary, with nothing to show for it. The opportunity cost is that all that effort could have been spent on something with lasting value. Parker's spending is therefore equally tasteless. I should say that I am not judging Parker here. A wedding is a big deal, the amount of money we are talking about here is not all that huge, and Parker seems to have some consciousness about his spending. I am, though, defending the right of others to judge Parker. Mild social criticism---not tar-and-feathering---for extravagant spending, and social praise for positive spending, is good for society as a whole.
  • skilesare 13y ago
    Can you define 'completely temporary?' A chef paid to create a once in a life time meal for something like this is honing their craft. An Ice Sculptor is probably creating their masterwork. The biologists he used may have never had a chance to work on conserving an area this large. An architect builds houses that the wind will erode away over the next 500 years. How permanent does something need to be to make the creation of it worthwhile?
  • bentcorner 13y ago
    > All that effort could have been spent on something with lasting value. How much of the money we spend day-to-day actually fits this criteria? I buy food that I pass a day later, I watch TV that benefits nobody, and I type on a keyboard to make software, that, while valued by others, isn't exactly art or anything (like the bridge in Sean Parker's wedding, it is useful for a time, and will eventually be discarded when it is no longer wanted).