It's quite strange to say that private individuals should spend their personal money on social causes instead of whatever projects they prefer, while the city should spend taxpayers' money on your pet beautification and ecology projects.
A) Waterfront improvements are somewhat more socially important than saving the ship. But helping the sick and starving is massively more socially important than both.
B) Public bodies such as the city of Philadelphia have a much stronger obligation to focus on socially important causes than do private citizens.
C) However, frankrizzo was imposing a much stronger condition on private citizens ("no ship while the sick and starving are suffering!") than on the city ("let's make the waterfront prettier!" "but what about the sick and starving?" "sssh, don't worry about that"). This violates either A or B. Since A and B are commonly held beliefs, C is strange.
What I find incoherent is the OP's implication that saving a historic icon means neglecting the sick and starving.
I suppose the Eiffel tower should also be left to rust away.
Comments
It's quite strange to say that private individuals should spend their personal money on social causes instead of whatever projects they prefer, while the city should spend taxpayers' money on your pet beautification and ecology projects.
You think it's contradictory to say that private individuals and cities should both fund public-benefit causes?
Come on, man. That's not even coherent. If you get mad when people tell other people how to spend their money, just say so.
Nice strawman. Let me explain like you're five:
A) Waterfront improvements are somewhat more socially important than saving the ship. But helping the sick and starving is massively more socially important than both.
B) Public bodies such as the city of Philadelphia have a much stronger obligation to focus on socially important causes than do private citizens.
C) However, frankrizzo was imposing a much stronger condition on private citizens ("no ship while the sick and starving are suffering!") than on the city ("let's make the waterfront prettier!" "but what about the sick and starving?" "sssh, don't worry about that"). This violates either A or B. Since A and B are commonly held beliefs, C is strange.
What I find incoherent is the OP's implication that saving a historic icon means neglecting the sick and starving. I suppose the Eiffel tower should also be left to rust away.