• BelovedOldFriend [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      One of the most annoying things about the internet is when someone looks at a picture like this and think "ah, there is no possible valid reason for this thing that I find weird!"

      Cool inadvertent anti-ecology post, OP.

      • save_vs_death [they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        then don't put the suburb on the other side of the protected turtle, you think it will continue to live there once the entirety of the region is built around?

        • BelovedOldFriend [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          I mean yeah the big problem is the existence of the development but for whatever reason this post struck me as being about the absence of a bridge.

          Now that I've had some coffee, I'm less sure that that's the correct takeaway from this post.

          • save_vs_death [they/them]
            ·
            3 years ago

            i think your general point of "people on the internet see one angle of a story and then kneejerk" is completely well founded and valid, it's just that the particular illustrating example is not convincing, didn't mean to come off harsh

            • BelovedOldFriend [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              :rat-salute:

              I think I'm the one who came off harsh here, particularly to the OP. Sorry about that, @RNAi

              • RNAi [he/him]
                ·
                3 years ago

                I didn't care anyways cuz I didn't know about the turtle thing. :heart-sickle:

        • BelovedOldFriend [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          You could, if you had even a modicum of authority to do central planning. That development was put in that place specifically to avoid any sort of local authorities, though.

        • D61 [any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          :hoxha-turt:

          Life.. uhhh... finds a way...