|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 12:13:31 GMT
You are saying as if people who are looking to restore it are in some way responsible for the building burning down.
I didn't say anything even close to this. Stop listening to the voices in your head and pay attention to objective reality.
Then make a museum out of the ruins. Any attempt to "restore" the original will just be a modern game of pretend. Anyone could do it, anywhere. It will never be genuine and authentic, just modern people imitating the talents of our ancestors--and probably not doing nearly as well as them.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 12:15:56 GMT
Oh I dealt with them alright. It was you who felt the need to buttress your weak arguments with the Ad hominem taunts. Again: you need to learn what words mean in order to be taken (and deserve to be taken) seriously. You did not in any way deal with my points, and I did not make so much as one actual ad hominem argument.
Educate yourself. You desperately need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 12:20:31 GMT
Since I never asked to prove a moral stance, this is irrelevant. Your claim was that I don't have a moral compass. I asked you to prove that claim. Okay, I was engaging in pure hyperbole. I'm sure that you, and even Nazi officers, have a moral compass of some sort.
I just happen to have nothing but pure contempt for what a pathetic moral compass you do actually possess. Civilization depends on people who can do better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 12:21:57 GMT
You are saying as if people who are looking to restore it are in some way responsible for the building burning down.
I didn't say anything even close to this. Stop listening to the voices in your head and pay attention to objective reality.
Then make a museum out of the ruins. Any attempt to "restore" the original will just be a modern game of pretend. Anyone could do it, anywhere. It will never be genuine and authentic, just modern people imitating the talents of our ancestors--and probably not doing nearly as well as them.
Anyone just doesn't start making a building like Notre Dame and that too anywhere. It would be done only under exceptional circumstances as it happens to be right now when the original building has been damaged after staying up for close to a millenium. And it can't happen just anywhere. Only on the spot where the original building stood. And it might not be 100% authentic, it will have backing of a past legacy. You don't even have basic knowledge of how demand and supply work, uneducated hack. And you are the one who listens to voices in his heads. Stop being a bit less pretentious. But given your frequent 100 page interactions with Heeyy I wouldn't expect a less pretentious person in you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 12:23:12 GMT
Since I never asked to prove a moral stance, this is irrelevant. Your claim was that I don't have a moral compass. I asked you to prove that claim. Okay, I was engaging in pure hyperbole. I'm sure that you, and even Nazi officers, have a moral compass of some sort.
I just happen to have nothing but pure contempt for what a pathetic moral compass you do actually possess. Civilization depends on people who can do better.
Lol at you. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 12:26:01 GMT
Oh I dealt with them alright. It was you who felt the need to buttress your weak arguments with the Ad hominem taunts. Again: you need to learn what words mean in order to be taken (and deserve to be taken) seriously. You did not in any way deal with my points, and I did not make so much as one actual ad hominem argument.
Educate yourself. You desperately need it.
He comes across as one of the most educated and calm and collected person on this board. You are the new Rabbit here.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 12:36:10 GMT
The worldview implied here is that everyone should do without every luxury, everything but the basic bare essentials, until starvation no longer exists in the world. That's how people keep spinning things, but that isn't the argument that is actually being made. I make donations that help the poor and I also buy myself expensive toys and dinners every once in a while. The argument isn't that this is wrong. That isn't the point, and that isn't what is happening in this specific situation.
(Fundamentally, I object to the very existence of billionaires. I don't think that a just economic and political system would allow them to be. So let's get that out of the way. Probably no one here is the socialist I am.)
But we have a situation where billionaires have been sitting on their wealth for decades, and only now have they been motivated to donate their money. It isn't as if they've been sitting there this whole time debating in their minds how much should be devoted to cool public works like restoring old burned down buildings, and how much should be devoted to feeding people or building useful public infrastructure. They suddenly decided that vast donations were only worthy on a building--something which gets them a lot of publicity, but makes a substantially minor contribution to the betterment of actual, living human beings.
It isn't as if this money was originally going somewhere else, folks. They were sitting on it. And only a building motivated them to donate it. Not people.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 12:38:44 GMT
And it can't happen just anywhere. Only on the spot where the original building stood. This is nothing more than symbolism and pure, childish emotional attachment. I value human lives more. Too bad you do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 12:40:31 GMT
And it can't happen just anywhere. Only on the spot where the original building stood. This is nothing more than symbolism and pure, childish emotional attachment. I value human lives more. Too bad you do not. Too bad you are an uneducated person who makes idiotic judgment about others based on your less informed views, Heyy/Cody/Rabbit equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 12:44:53 GMT
Too bad you are an uneducated person who makes idiotic judgment about others based on your less informed views, Heyy/Cody/Rabbit equivalent. You couldn't document so much as one factual thing I've gotten wrong if your life depended on it. So much for "education".
This is about values and morality, shit for brains. Grow up and deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 12:49:37 GMT
Too bad you are an uneducated person who makes idiotic judgment about others based on your less informed views, Heyy/Cody/Rabbit equivalent. You couldn't document so much as one factual thing I've gotten wrong if your life depended on it. So much for "education".
This is about values and morality, shit for brains. Grow up and deal with it.
Your morality is influenced by your lack of education and mistaken views, Mr. "s for brains". You should not have deleted that part of your post to cham a while back. The only person that needs growing up is someone who is as childish as you. duh...here we have a person calling everyone immoral and expects to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 12:57:20 GMT
Your morality is influenced by your lack of education and mistaken views, Mr. "s for brains". If this were a matter of education, then you could provide facts taught in schools and universities all over the world which supported your case and harmed mine. Facts that I am too uneducated about to know.
So go ahead: cite these facts. Show what your superior education has taught you about objective, factual reality that my inferior education has left me ignorant of. Go ahead. Do it.
We both know you can't, sweetie.
This isn't about education. It is about values and morality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 13:42:24 GMT
Your morality is influenced by your lack of education and mistaken views, Mr. "s for brains". If this were a matter of education, then you could provide facts taught in schools and universities all over the world which supported your case and harmed mine. Facts that I am too uneducated about to know. So go ahead: cite these facts. Show what your superior education has taught you about objective, factual reality that my inferior education has left me ignorant of. Go ahead. Do it.
We both know you can't, sweetie.
This isn't about education. It is about values and morality.
It is only your lack of education that makes you even ask for facts as if there are ready made article written to answer the exact question in your mind. It has taken me years of education to even come close to understanding economics. Economics is something that even economists do not agree upon so it is not a maths formula that I will show as one fact. The fact that 13 million visitors are attracted by Notre Dame every year should be the starting point or how the tourism industry reacted to the recent fire. I understand how ignorant people /trolls could go with arguments such as "oh so those rich people involved in tourism are greedy so of course they will lament the burning of Notre Dame and ask for its rebuild." But wait. Tourism industry influences the whole of the economy. Effiel tower changed the very face of Paris and the foreign investment that came in after it was built was directly related to how the city had changed status after it was built. One only needs a bit of intelligence to understand the amount of revenue that cathedrals of Europe generate. The employment opportunities they create and the help they provide to local communities and local businesses. In economics, there are concepts like direct costs and indirect costs and there are concepts like monetary and non-monetary benefits attached to costs. The thing with historically important monuments/building is that they provide direct and indirect benefits. We all know the monetary influence of historically important buildings but they also provide non-monetary benefits. Notre Dame, for example, was an inspiration to great writers such as Victor Hugo and Sigmund Freud. The later for instance was awed by it and returned to the cathedral every afternoon to feel its majesty. Those are just 2 names I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 13:46:16 GMT
And many people seem to be hooked on the idea that certain building belongs solely to the religious organization which built them or controls them. Another mistaken belief. For instance, UK cathedrals get over 8 million annual visitors that are non-worshippers. The historically important buildings have far wider influence than people usually understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 14:00:54 GMT
It is only your lack of education that makes you even ask for facts as if there are ready made article written to answer the exact question in your mind. So you have no facts. Got it. Like I said, it isn't a matter of you being better educated than me. You might be, you might not be. Facts aren't the issue. Good for you. Except this issue isn't about economics. It is about values. Can you cite evidence that they only traveled to Paris because of Notre Dame and wouldn't have spent their money in the city without Notre Dame? Can you cite evidence that a museum set up around the ruins of Notre Dame would not also attract tourists in the same volumes, if not more?
All your talk of economics is complete and utter bullshit until you address these issues. With facts.
And to repeat another fact: the new Notre Dame will just be a recreation of the original for purely symbolic reasons. The artistry of the original is not going to be replicated, ever. This will be a toy copy using modern materials and methods, purely to satisfy emotional cravings.
And because your feeble mind seems incapable of staying on point, let's get back to my original point: that the billionaires who suddenly have become generous because a building burned down should have been generous before this happened, and generous in a way that measurably and objectively improved the material conditions of actual, living human beings. I have no objection at all to them spending some money on Notre Dame, only that they were motivated to give up such huge sums now, and for a building, rather than before, for fucking human beings. (I'm sure they donated modest sums to help folks out prior to this, just not in the huge, targeted quantities they are doing so for a building.)
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 21, 2019 14:14:23 GMT
But we have a situation where billionaires have been sitting on their wealth for decades, and only now have they been motivated to donate their money. It isn't as if they've been sitting there this whole time debating in their minds how much should be devoted to cool public works like restoring old burned down buildings, and how much should be devoted to feeding people or building useful public infrastructure. They suddenly decided that vast donations were only worthy on a building--something which gets them a lot of publicity, but makes a substantially minor contribution to the betterment of actual, living human beings. It isn't as if this money was originally going somewhere else, folks. They were sitting on it. Except they weren't. Here are just two links to foundations run by two big donors of money for the Notre Dame reconstruction. www.worldartfoundations.com/foundation/francois-pinault-foundation-palazzo-grassi/www.foundation.total/en/These foundations existed long before the Notre Dame fire, and they have been giving money to various causes before it. But of course, anybody who knows just a little bit about economy and world politics knows that billionaires don't just sit on their money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 14:17:02 GMT
It is only your lack of education that makes you even ask for facts as if there are ready made article written to answer the exact question in your mind. So you have no facts. Got it. Like I said, it isn't a matter of you being better educated than me. You might be, you might not be. Facts aren't the issue. Good for you. Except this issue isn't about economics. It is about values. Can you cite evidence that they only traveled to Paris because of Notre Dame and wouldn't have spent their money in the city without Notre Dame? Can you cite evidence that a museum set up around the ruins of Notre Dame would not also attract tourists in the same volumes, if not more? All your talk of economics is complete and utter bullshit until you address these issues. With facts. And to repeat another fact: the new Notre Dame will just be a recreation of the original for purely symbolic reasons. The artistry of the original is not going to be replicated, ever. This will be a toy copy using modern materials and methods, purely to satisfy emotional cravings.
And because your feeble mind seems incapable of staying on point, let's get back to my original point: that the billionaires who suddenly have become generous because a building burned down should have been generous before this happened, and generous in a way that measurably and objectively improved the material conditions of actual, living human beings. I have no objection at all to them spending some money on Notre Dame, only that they were motivated to give up such huge sums now, and for a building, rather than before, for fucking human beings. (I'm sure they donated modest sums to help folks out prior to this, just not in the huge, targeted quantities they are doing so for a building.) So you are a clueless person who doesn't understand how facts work.
"Can you cite evidence that they only traveled to Paris because of Notre Dame". Which is a claim I have not made. LOL. It's embarrassing that you even say that. A great site can help influence an overall tourism industry without being the only reason people travel to a region. There fact that it gets more visitors every year than even the Eiffel Tower should be telling. And talk of economics can only be bullshit for a thoroughly uneducated hack who doesn't understand a bit of how it works. Take example of my visit to Salisbury Cathedral in 2013. I wouldn't have traveled to the city of Salisbury if not to visit that cathedral. But even if I did travel to that town for seeing Salisbury cathedrals among many other things my contribution to hotel expenses and transport expenses surely helped the local economy. As did the little things that I bought in the premises of that Cathedral. The economy works on the concept of value addition. And your judgments about the morality of people who have come out to support Notre Dame without even personally knowing them but only making guesses is purely ludicrous and laughable. Only shows how far detached from reality are people like you. And what sort of morality you actually do possess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 21, 2019 14:18:40 GMT
But we have a situation where billionaires have been sitting on their wealth for decades, and only now have they been motivated to donate their money. It isn't as if they've been sitting there this whole time debating in their minds how much should be devoted to cool public works like restoring old burned down buildings, and how much should be devoted to feeding people or building useful public infrastructure. They suddenly decided that vast donations were only worthy on a building--something which gets them a lot of publicity, but makes a substantially minor contribution to the betterment of actual, living human beings. It isn't as if this money was originally going somewhere else, folks. They were sitting on it. Except they weren't. Here are just two links to foundations run by two big donors of money for the Notre Dame reconstruction. www.worldartfoundations.com/foundation/francois-pinault-foundation-palazzo-grassi/www.foundation.total/en/These foundations existed long before the Notre Dame fire, and they have been giving money to various causes before it. But of course, anybody who knows just a little bit about economy and world politics knows that billionaires don't just sit on their money. I am just stunned how far some people are willing to makes guesses about people they don't even personally know. Whatever I think must be true about others......What a logic (or lack of).
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 21, 2019 14:23:20 GMT
Except they were.
I already acknowledged that I know these folks were giving money to help the poor in some fashion or other prior to the fire. My point is that they never rallied together to contribute enormous, targeted, coordinated cash to any project in such volumes until a building burned down.
It's hilarious the way such a simple point seems so difficult for otherwise smart people to get their minds around. That's what happens when people's minds become hijacked by odious ideologies which make them care more about pretty buildings than living human beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 21, 2019 14:26:35 GMT
Can you cite evidence that they only traveled to Paris because of Notre Dame and wouldn't have spent their money in the city without Notre Dame? Can you cite evidence that a museum set up around the ruins of Notre Dame would not also attract tourists in the same volumes, if not more? All your talk of economics is complete and utter bullshit until you address these issues. With facts. With pleasure. Obviously there are no numbers for tourism in Paris before Notre-Dame was built. But another example of a damaged church exists in Germany with the Frauenkirche in Dresden, Saxonia. Destroyed in 1945, it was only rebuilt after the German unification, and reopened in 2005. It had 2.5 million visitors in one year and after the reopening, tourist numbers in Dresden increased by 20%. For more numbers, go here.
And the Frauenkirche is less iconic than the Notre-Dame cathedral.
|
|
