Notre Dame Cathedral is ****ed

  • 76 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for horgen
Horgen

121334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#51 Horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 121334 Posts

@Solaryellow said:

Pathetic. Not you but the unfortunate reality of the situation. I firmly believe if any other business was involved with such numerous instances of abuse constantly being covered up, it would cease to exist. But hey, lets freak out over four walls and a roof.

Difficult to compare the church to any other business. People seem to look away at anything bad the church does. Anyhow I think BBC covered up for some pedophile for many years. Metoo movement did reveal some nasty people.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is disgusting what the church have done, be it covering for pedophile priests or covering other scandals.

Avatar image for Chutebox
Chutebox

44781

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Chutebox
Member since 2007 • 44781 Posts

@Solaryellow: Members of the church are pretty damn pissed and sick of it.

It's disgusting and hopefully actual change incoming.

Avatar image for angeldeb82
angeldeb82

1576

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 angeldeb82
Member since 2005 • 1576 Posts

In other news, Disney is offering $5,000,000 to help restore the cathedral, but Sen. Ted Cruz wasn't fond of it and asked, "Will we see Disney Princesses in the new stained glass?" even though the 12th to 13th stained glass windows survived the fire. People took to Twitter to respond to Cruz's "tasteless" joke, with one of them stating that Cruz "would make a perfect gargoyle." Nice work, guys!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/18/you-would-make-perfect-gargoyle-ted-cruz-roasted-joke-about-disneys-notre-dame-donation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.64697c827890

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#54 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@n64dd said:
@theone86 said:

The past is the past. It's ridiculous to be spending as much as they were renovating a centuries-old building in the first place when there are so many other things they could be spending that money on. Too caught up in the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present, that's Europe in a nutshell.

Blazing ignorance and hatred spewing from you per usual.

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#55 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@Solaryellow said:
@horgen said:
@Solaryellow said:

Can you imagine if people were even half as emotional and upset at the Catholic sex scandal as they are a damaged building?

We are used to that. Not to Notre Dame burning.

Pathetic. Not you but the unfortunate reality of the situation. I firmly believe if any other business was involved with such numerous instances of abuse constantly being covered up, it would cease to exist. But hey, lets freak out over four walls and a roof.

So you'd be fine if every culture simply ditches their history and culture?

Avatar image for ezekiel43
Ezekiel43

1873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#56  Edited By Ezekiel43
Member since 2017 • 1873 Posts

@Solaryellow said:

Can you imagine if people were even half as emotional and upset at the Catholic sex scandal as they are a damaged building?

People aren't that upset about the sexual abuse? The Catholic Church isn't notorious for it? Are you sure?

Avatar image for sancho_panzer
Sancho_Panzer

884

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57  Edited By Sancho_Panzer  Online
Member since 2015 • 884 Posts

Seeing as we've already gone way off topic... Did you know that the foreskin is the most powerful erogenous zone in males? Unnecessary amputation on religious grounds might just constitute profound and irreversible sexual abuse of infants, as condoned by the respective practising churches. I'm not even going to get into the oral suction mohel tradition, which continues in developed nations to this day.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

5197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58  Edited By Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 5197 Posts

@sonicare said:
@Solaryellow said:

Pathetic. Not you but the unfortunate reality of the situation. I firmly believe if any other business was involved with such numerous instances of abuse constantly being covered up, it would cease to exist. But hey, lets freak out over four walls and a roof.

So you'd be fine if every culture simply ditches their history and culture?

If by "culture" you mean a business best known for molestation and the grand cover-up proceeding it? Yep.

It's been a while since I heard anything about the molestation scandal and I say that coming from an area where this scandal hit hard and numeros.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#59 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@Solaryellow said:
@sonicare said:
@Solaryellow said:

Pathetic. Not you but the unfortunate reality of the situation. I firmly believe if any other business was involved with such numerous instances of abuse constantly being covered up, it would cease to exist. But hey, lets freak out over four walls and a roof.

So you'd be fine if every culture simply ditches their history and culture?

If by "culture" you mean a business best known for molestation and the grand cover-up proceeding it? Yep.

It's been a while since I heard anything about the molestation scandal and I say that coming from an area where this scandal hit hard and numeros.

You can make that argument for every single society and culture. Play video games. You really shouldn't based on the Japanese atrocities in China. Drive fancy cars. Stop, germans were nazis you shouldnt drive their cars. Live in america. Where do I begin. ETc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc .etc.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

5197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 5197 Posts

@sonicare said:

You can make that argument for every single society and culture. Play video games. You really shouldn't based on the Japanese atrocities in China. Drive fancy cars. Stop, germans were nazis you shouldnt drive their cars. Live in america. Where do I begin. ETc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc .etc.

Molestation (under the guise of religion) is a bit different than war atrocities, no? If you really dive into the matter though, Japan and Germany were punished for their doings.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#61 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@Solaryellow said:
@sonicare said:

You can make that argument for every single society and culture. Play video games. You really shouldn't based on the Japanese atrocities in China. Drive fancy cars. Stop, germans were nazis you shouldnt drive their cars. Live in america. Where do I begin. ETc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc .etc.

Molestation (under the guise of religion) is a bit different than war atrocities, no? If you really dive into the matter though, Japan and Germany were punished for their doings.

Notre Dame Cathedral is as much a landmark for Paris and France as it is any holy symbol, no? I've visited numerous cities around the world and visited many historic sites that have certain religous undertones, but I found them amazing and a wonderful reflection on the history of humankind. I just think you're limiting yourself if you hate one particular religion or sect and celebrate the destruction of history. I view many religions more as culture than religion, per se. I doubt,too, that there religion is molestation under the guise of religion.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#62 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22417 Posts
@sonicare said:
@n64dd said:
@theone86 said:

The past is the past. It's ridiculous to be spending as much as they were renovating a centuries-old building in the first place when there are so many other things they could be spending that money on. Too caught up in the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present, that's Europe in a nutshell.

Blazing ignorance and hatred spewing from you per usual.

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#63 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@n64dd said:
@theone86 said:

The past is the past. It's ridiculous to be spending as much as they were renovating a centuries-old building in the first place when there are so many other things they could be spending that money on. Too caught up in the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present, that's Europe in a nutshell.

Blazing ignorance and hatred spewing from you per usual.

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

Avatar image for Jag85
Jag85

13668

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 213

User Lists: 0

#64 Jag85
Member since 2005 • 13668 Posts

@mrbojangles25: Interesting. Didn't think a video game like AC Unity could turn out to be so useful. Assassin's Creed will now become part of Notre Dame's history.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#65 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22417 Posts
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@n64dd said:
@theone86 said:

The past is the past. It's ridiculous to be spending as much as they were renovating a centuries-old building in the first place when there are so many other things they could be spending that money on. Too caught up in the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present, that's Europe in a nutshell.

Blazing ignorance and hatred spewing from you per usual.

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#66 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@n64dd said:

Blazing ignorance and hatred spewing from you per usual.

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#67 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22417 Posts

@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
Sevenizz

4087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#68 Sevenizz
Member since 2010 • 4087 Posts

So what’s the latest on this? I’ve seen a few videos saying this was most likely a terrorist plot as there’s been a rash of church burnings in France lately and there’s inconsistencies in the accidental assumptions.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#69 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Culture has definitive value to societies. You're just hating on one particular aspect of it because you dont care for it. Would you be happy if all the art, sculputre, poetery, literature in the world suddenly was lost forever. Would you say that has no value to society. we should just focus on fixing poverty and ignore all that wasteful stuff like art and culture. To hell with it! What a fun world that would be.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#70 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22417 Posts
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Culture has definitive value to societies. You're just hating on one particular aspect of it because you dont care for it. Would you be happy if all the art, sculputre, poetery, literature in the world suddenly was lost forever. Would you say that has no value to society. we should just focus on fixing poverty and ignore all that wasteful stuff like art and culture. To hell with it! What a fun world that would be.

Culture doesn't have value to society, culture is society, and society is people. "culture", as you're defining it, is nothing but a bunch of inanimate objects, objects that rely on people to give them value and not the other way around. As soon as those objects take priority over people they've become pernicious and no, I wouldn't mind seeing them destroyed in the slightest. More works of art can be made, but people are irreplaceable. Your worldview is perverse to elevate "culture" above people, and if I had to destroy beautiful works of art in order to help actual people then I would in a second.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

35928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#71 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 35928 Posts
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Culture has definitive value to societies. You're just hating on one particular aspect of it because you dont care for it. Would you be happy if all the art, sculputre, poetery, literature in the world suddenly was lost forever. Would you say that has no value to society. we should just focus on fixing poverty and ignore all that wasteful stuff like art and culture. To hell with it! What a fun world that would be.

Culture doesn't have value to society, culture is society, and society is people. "culture", as you're defining it, is nothing but a bunch of inanimate objects, objects that rely on people to give them value and not the other way around. As soon as those objects take priority over people they've become pernicious and no, I wouldn't mind seeing them destroyed in the slightest. More works of art can be made, but people are irreplaceable. Your worldview is perverse to elevate "culture" above people, and if I had to destroy beautiful works of art in order to help actual people then I would in a second.

again, it's not a one or the other decision. we can help actual people and preserve culturally significant works at the same time.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#72 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22417 Posts
@comp_atkins said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Culture has definitive value to societies. You're just hating on one particular aspect of it because you dont care for it. Would you be happy if all the art, sculputre, poetery, literature in the world suddenly was lost forever. Would you say that has no value to society. we should just focus on fixing poverty and ignore all that wasteful stuff like art and culture. To hell with it! What a fun world that would be.

Culture doesn't have value to society, culture is society, and society is people. "culture", as you're defining it, is nothing but a bunch of inanimate objects, objects that rely on people to give them value and not the other way around. As soon as those objects take priority over people they've become pernicious and no, I wouldn't mind seeing them destroyed in the slightest. More works of art can be made, but people are irreplaceable. Your worldview is perverse to elevate "culture" above people, and if I had to destroy beautiful works of art in order to help actual people then I would in a second.

again, it's not a one or the other decision. we can help actual people and preserve culturally significant works at the same time.

It shouldn't be a one or the other decision, but it is. When the rich spend years upon years upon years arguing that government programs that help actual people should be abolished and billions upon billions of dollars lobbying politicians and funding campaigns to make sure that happens, and then turn around in an instant and drop a cool billion on a musty old church like it was nothing then it creates an issue. It wouldn't be a one or the other decision if we would just make a commitment as a society to ensure that everyone has food, housing, and education and THEN spend a bunch of money restoring a bunch of old stones, but that's not what we did. It's like making an excessively large purchase while you're trying to work your way out of debt. It wouldn't be a bad thing if you would've taken care of your responsibilities first, but that's not what you did. I'm not the one making it into a one or the other decision, the people who refuse to spend money improving society but drop a billion dollars on rocks are.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

35928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#73 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 35928 Posts

@theone86 said:
@comp_atkins said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Culture has definitive value to societies. You're just hating on one particular aspect of it because you dont care for it. Would you be happy if all the art, sculputre, poetery, literature in the world suddenly was lost forever. Would you say that has no value to society. we should just focus on fixing poverty and ignore all that wasteful stuff like art and culture. To hell with it! What a fun world that would be.

Culture doesn't have value to society, culture is society, and society is people. "culture", as you're defining it, is nothing but a bunch of inanimate objects, objects that rely on people to give them value and not the other way around. As soon as those objects take priority over people they've become pernicious and no, I wouldn't mind seeing them destroyed in the slightest. More works of art can be made, but people are irreplaceable. Your worldview is perverse to elevate "culture" above people, and if I had to destroy beautiful works of art in order to help actual people then I would in a second.

again, it's not a one or the other decision. we can help actual people and preserve culturally significant works at the same time.

It shouldn't be a one or the other decision, but it is. When the rich spend years upon years upon years arguing that government programs that help actual people should be abolished and billions upon billions of dollars lobbying politicians and funding campaigns to make sure that happens, and then turn around in an instant and drop a cool billion on a musty old church like it was nothing then it creates an issue. It wouldn't be a one or the other decision if we would just make a commitment as a society to ensure that everyone has food, housing, and education and THEN spend a bunch of money restoring a bunch of old stones, but that's not what we did. It's like making an excessively large purchase while you're trying to work your way out of debt. It wouldn't be a bad thing if you would've taken care of your responsibilities first, but that's not what you did. I'm not the one making it into a one or the other decision, the people who refuse to spend money improving society but drop a billion dollars on rocks are.

are you privy to the charitable work ( or lack thereof ) of the all "the rich" to make those judgments? also, it's pretty fucking arrogant to appoint yourself the one who decides how someone else should spend their money.

so joe billionaire has to eradicate world hunger, disease, and poverty before we can start thinking about preserving heritage?

i'm with you on the bullshit lobbying though..

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#74 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@theone86 said:
@comp_atkins said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:

I It's a bunch of rocks and wood.

Culture has definitive value to societies. You're just hating on one particular aspect of it because you dont care for it. Would you be happy if all the art, sculputre, poetery, literature in the world suddenly was lost forever. Would you say that has no value to society. we should just focus on fixing poverty and ignore all that wasteful stuff like art and culture. To hell with it! What a fun world that would be.

Culture doesn't have value to society, culture is society, and society is people. "culture", as you're defining it, is nothing but a bunch of inanimate objects, objects that rely on people to give them value and not the other way around. As soon as those objects take priority over people they've become pernicious and no, I wouldn't mind seeing them destroyed in the slightest. More works of art can be made, but people are irreplaceable. Your worldview is perverse to elevate "culture" above people, and if I had to destroy beautiful works of art in order to help actual people then I would in a second.

again, it's not a one or the other decision. we can help actual people and preserve culturally significant works at the same time.

I think we have radically different takes on the value of culture. You seem to view it as some privilege of the wealthy, and to embrace culture is to thumb your nose at the rest of "poor" society. That art, literature, etc. is a luxury that is otherwise meaningless in the greater picture. I wholeheartedly disagree. For many people, culture gives their lives identity, inspiration, and purpose. A reason to live other than simply existing.

Also, I don't know why you view culture as simply the play thing of the wealthy. The earliest hunter-gatherer tribes devoted large amounts of time and effort to spiritualism. Look at the aboriginals in Australia for example. They have tons of sacred sites dotted throughout the country. Would you not mind if the government there simply bulldozed those sites to make more affordable housing and farmland available?

Maybe to you, Notre Dame cathedral is just a bunch of rocks and wood. The Mona Lisa may just be a bunch of paint on a canvas. Shakespeare a bunch of ink on paper. But to others, these examples of culture hold far deeper meaning and enjoyment. Who are you to say what should be important to each person? You say people are irreplaceable - but they aren't. Individuals are irreplaceable, but people are replaced all the time. Everyone that lived during the time Notre Dame was built is dead, but yet, the cathedral remains. A testament to the history and culture of those times. I think certain landmarks give us a sense of peace and security due to their permanence in an ever changing world. I'm sure that many people, especially the french, take great pride in that site as it represents their history, their culture, and to some of them, their spirituality. Besides, it's not like France doesn't have fairly robust social systems to help the people. I don't know why you believe that it's all or nothing. Do you not spend money on entertainment despite the fact that their are people out their starving?

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#75 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22417 Posts
@comp_atkins said:

are you privy to the charitable work ( or lack thereof ) of the all "the rich" to make those judgments? also, it's pretty fucking arrogant to appoint yourself the one who decides how someone else should spend their money.

so joe billionaire has to eradicate world hunger, disease, and poverty before we can start thinking about preserving heritage?

i'm with you on the bullshit lobbying though..

Yeah, rich people think it's cool that homeless people die of exposure while they spend billions of dollars rebuilding a thousand year old relic, but I'M the arrogant one? Okay, sure.

And, BTW, not only do the rich spend proportionately less of their income on charity than middle class individuals, but charity has proven to be an ineffective vehicle for social change. What really betters people's lives is having more money in their pockets to spend as they need, not waiting for other people to give them what they think they need. I'd be much more impressed by the wealthy paying a living wage than I would be them dropping a bunch of money on charity.

As for eradicating disease, no, that's impossible. Hunger and poverty? Absolutely. There's no reason anyone should starve in this day and age. And it would be one thing if it just wasn't feasibly possible. Notre Dame proves it's possible. When rich people want something a billion dollars just materializes out of nowhere. Where was all the charitable giving after Grenfell Tower? Where was the billion dollars dropping out of the sky? Oh yeah, I forgot, that building wasn't "culture", it was only people's home. I'm only left to conclude that they don't want to end poverty and hunger. Since they don't care about what I care about, I don't care about what they care about. **** their moldy old church, and **** them.

@sonicare said:

I think we have radically different takes on the value of culture. You seem to view it as some privilege of the wealthy, and to embrace culture is to thumb your nose at the rest of "poor" society. That art, literature, etc. is a luxury that is otherwise meaningless in the greater picture. I wholeheartedly disagree. For many people, culture gives their lives identity, inspiration, and purpose. A reason to live other than simply existing.

Also, I don't know why you view culture as simply the play thing of the wealthy. The earliest hunter-gatherer tribes devoted large amounts of time and effort to spiritualism. Look at the aboriginals in Australia for example. They have tons of sacred sites dotted throughout the country. Would you not mind if the government there simply bulldozed those sites to make more affordable housing and farmland available?

Maybe to you, Notre Dame cathedral is just a bunch of rocks and wood. The Mona Lisa may just be a bunch of paint on a canvas. Shakespeare a bunch of ink on paper. But to others, these examples of culture hold far deeper meaning and enjoyment. Who are you to say what should be important to each person? You say people are irreplaceable - but they aren't. Individuals are irreplaceable, but people are replaced all the time. Everyone that lived during the time Notre Dame was built is dead, but yet, the cathedral remains. A testament to the history and culture of those times. I think certain landmarks give us a sense of peace and security due to their permanence in an ever changing world. I'm sure that many people, especially the french, take great pride in that site as it represents their history, their culture, and to some of them, their spirituality. Besides, it's not like France doesn't have fairly robust social systems to help the people. I don't know why you believe that it's all or nothing. Do you not spend money on entertainment despite the fact that their are people out their starving?

And who decides what is culture and what isn't? Oh right, the wealthy. Who decided which buildings got to be built or paintings painted in the first place? The wealthy. Who decided which artists starved and which were able to eke out a living? The wealthy. Who decides which paintings get to be preserved in museums and which are left to decay? The wealthy. You're hopelessly naïve if you think that "culture" isn't a creation of the elites. How about next year you try getting into the Met gala by telling them how much you love culture and how it gives your life meaning?

And how arrogant are you to say people don't have a purpose in life if they're simply existing? I've got news for you, but that's what the vast majority of people throughout history do. They go about their lives, they find enjoyment and love, they work, they die, that's life. They don't need some thousand year old building to give their life meaning. Millions of people lived before Notre Dame was ever built, millions more have never heard of or seen Notre Dame, and their lives are just as vivid and meaningful as anyone else's. "Culture" doesn't give their lives meaning, they do. They're not dependent on any work of art or any organization to imbue their lives with meaning, and the fact that you think they are just makes my argument for me.

You're hitting on exactly the problem. You think that some building standing for a long time or some painting being preserved for a long time is a way to cheat death, to gain immortality, it's not. Everything fades to dust, everything. Your precious rocks and paint, steel and iron, and people. One day, one way or another, Notre Dame is going to be as gone as the people who built it. One day there won't be anyone left to remember Notre Dame or what it stood for. There's no such thing as permanence, and your obsession with objects of "culture" is just your way of fooling yourself into thinking there is. And hey, I would have zero problems with that if we focused on taking care of people before we focused on taking care of inanimate objects, but we don't. On the contrary, I think the elite in our society spend more time and effort preserving objects than they do helping people, which is why I have no problem seeing their "culture" burn.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

35928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#76  Edited By comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 35928 Posts
@theone86 said:
@comp_atkins said:

are you privy to the charitable work ( or lack thereof ) of the all "the rich" to make those judgments? also, it's pretty fucking arrogant to appoint yourself the one who decides how someone else should spend their money.

so joe billionaire has to eradicate world hunger, disease, and poverty before we can start thinking about preserving heritage?

i'm with you on the bullshit lobbying though..

Yeah, rich people think it's cool that homeless people die of exposure while they spend billions of dollars rebuilding a thousand year old relic, but I'M the arrogant one? Okay, sure.

And, BTW, not only do the rich spend proportionately less of their income on charity than middle class individuals, but charity has proven to be an ineffective vehicle for social change. What really betters people's lives is having more money in their pockets to spend as they need, not waiting for other people to give them what they think they need. I'd be much more impressed by the wealthy paying a living wage than I would be them dropping a bunch of money on charity.

As for eradicating disease, no, that's impossible. Hunger and poverty? Absolutely. There's no reason anyone should starve in this day and age. And it would be one thing if it just wasn't feasibly possible. Notre Dame proves it's possible. When rich people want something a billion dollars just materializes out of nowhere. Where was all the charitable giving after Grenfell Tower? Where was the billion dollars dropping out of the sky? Oh yeah, I forgot, that building wasn't "culture", it was only people's home. I'm only left to conclude that they don't want to end poverty and hunger. Since they don't care about what I care about, I don't care about what they care about. **** their moldy old church, and **** them.

@sonicare said:

I think we have radically different takes on the value of culture. You seem to view it as some privilege of the wealthy, and to embrace culture is to thumb your nose at the rest of "poor" society. That art, literature, etc. is a luxury that is otherwise meaningless in the greater picture. I wholeheartedly disagree. For many people, culture gives their lives identity, inspiration, and purpose. A reason to live other than simply existing.

Also, I don't know why you view culture as simply the play thing of the wealthy. The earliest hunter-gatherer tribes devoted large amounts of time and effort to spiritualism. Look at the aboriginals in Australia for example. They have tons of sacred sites dotted throughout the country. Would you not mind if the government there simply bulldozed those sites to make more affordable housing and farmland available?

Maybe to you, Notre Dame cathedral is just a bunch of rocks and wood. The Mona Lisa may just be a bunch of paint on a canvas. Shakespeare a bunch of ink on paper. But to others, these examples of culture hold far deeper meaning and enjoyment. Who are you to say what should be important to each person? You say people are irreplaceable - but they aren't. Individuals are irreplaceable, but people are replaced all the time. Everyone that lived during the time Notre Dame was built is dead, but yet, the cathedral remains. A testament to the history and culture of those times. I think certain landmarks give us a sense of peace and security due to their permanence in an ever changing world. I'm sure that many people, especially the french, take great pride in that site as it represents their history, their culture, and to some of them, their spirituality. Besides, it's not like France doesn't have fairly robust social systems to help the people. I don't know why you believe that it's all or nothing. Do you not spend money on entertainment despite the fact that their are people out their starving?

And who decides what is culture and what isn't? Oh right, the wealthy. Who decided which buildings got to be built or paintings painted in the first place? The wealthy. Who decided which artists starved and which were able to eke out a living? The wealthy. Who decides which paintings get to be preserved in museums and which are left to decay? The wealthy. You're hopelessly naïve if you think that "culture" isn't a creation of the elites. How about next year you try getting into the Met gala by telling them how much you love culture and how it gives your life meaning?

And how arrogant are you to say people don't have a purpose in life if they're simply existing? I've got news for you, but that's what the vast majority of people throughout history do. They go about their lives, they find enjoyment and love, they work, they die, that's life. They don't need some thousand year old building to give their life meaning. Millions of people lived before Notre Dame was ever built, millions more have never heard of or seen Notre Dame, and their lives are just as vivid and meaningful as anyone else's. "Culture" doesn't give their lives meaning, they do. They're not dependent on any work of art or any organization to imbue their lives with meaning, and the fact that you think they are just makes my argument for me.

You're hitting on exactly the problem. You think that some building standing for a long time or some painting being preserved for a long time is a way to cheat death, to gain immortality, it's not. Everything fades to dust, everything. Your precious rocks and paint, steel and iron, and people. One day, one way or another, Notre Dame is going to be as gone as the people who built it. One day there won't be anyone left to remember Notre Dame or what it stood for. There's no such thing as permanence, and your obsession with objects of "culture" is just your way of fooling yourself into thinking there is. And hey, I would have zero problems with that if we focused on taking care of people before we focused on taking care of inanimate objects, but we don't. On the contrary, I think the elite in our society spend more time and effort preserving objects than they do helping people, which is why I have no problem seeing their "culture" burn.

what a bleak and dreadful life you must live...

see that? i was able to make myself giggle and brighten my and maybe someone else's day a little bit because some (probably) rich folks created a tv show. has all the world seen it? no. will it be everlasting? no. does that matter? not at all. but i'm still happy it exists, even if for a while.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#77 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56890 Posts

@theone86 said:
@comp_atkins said:

are you privy to the charitable work ( or lack thereof ) of the all "the rich" to make those judgments? also, it's pretty fucking arrogant to appoint yourself the one who decides how someone else should spend their money.

so joe billionaire has to eradicate world hunger, disease, and poverty before we can start thinking about preserving heritage?

i'm with you on the bullshit lobbying though..

Yeah, rich people think it's cool that homeless people die of exposure while they spend billions of dollars rebuilding a thousand year old relic, but I'M the arrogant one? Okay, sure.

And, BTW, not only do the rich spend proportionately less of their income on charity than middle class individuals, but charity has proven to be an ineffective vehicle for social change. What really betters people's lives is having more money in their pockets to spend as they need, not waiting for other people to give them what they think they need. I'd be much more impressed by the wealthy paying a living wage than I would be them dropping a bunch of money on charity.

As for eradicating disease, no, that's impossible. Hunger and poverty? Absolutely. There's no reason anyone should starve in this day and age. And it would be one thing if it just wasn't feasibly possible. Notre Dame proves it's possible. When rich people want something a billion dollars just materializes out of nowhere. Where was all the charitable giving after Grenfell Tower? Where was the billion dollars dropping out of the sky? Oh yeah, I forgot, that building wasn't "culture", it was only people's home. I'm only left to conclude that they don't want to end poverty and hunger. Since they don't care about what I care about, I don't care about what they care about. **** their moldy old church, and **** them.

@sonicare said:

I think we have radically different takes on the value of culture. You seem to view it as some privilege of the wealthy, and to embrace culture is to thumb your nose at the rest of "poor" society. That art, literature, etc. is a luxury that is otherwise meaningless in the greater picture. I wholeheartedly disagree. For many people, culture gives their lives identity, inspiration, and purpose. A reason to live other than simply existing.

Also, I don't know why you view culture as simply the play thing of the wealthy. The earliest hunter-gatherer tribes devoted large amounts of time and effort to spiritualism. Look at the aboriginals in Australia for example. They have tons of sacred sites dotted throughout the country. Would you not mind if the government there simply bulldozed those sites to make more affordable housing and farmland available?

Maybe to you, Notre Dame cathedral is just a bunch of rocks and wood. The Mona Lisa may just be a bunch of paint on a canvas. Shakespeare a bunch of ink on paper. But to others, these examples of culture hold far deeper meaning and enjoyment. Who are you to say what should be important to each person? You say people are irreplaceable - but they aren't. Individuals are irreplaceable, but people are replaced all the time. Everyone that lived during the time Notre Dame was built is dead, but yet, the cathedral remains. A testament to the history and culture of those times. I think certain landmarks give us a sense of peace and security due to their permanence in an ever changing world. I'm sure that many people, especially the french, take great pride in that site as it represents their history, their culture, and to some of them, their spirituality. Besides, it's not like France doesn't have fairly robust social systems to help the people. I don't know why you believe that it's all or nothing. Do you not spend money on entertainment despite the fact that their are people out their starving?

And who decides what is culture and what isn't? Oh right, the wealthy. Who decided which buildings got to be built or paintings painted in the first place? The wealthy. Who decided which artists starved and which were able to eke out a living? The wealthy. Who decides which paintings get to be preserved in museums and which are left to decay? The wealthy. You're hopelessly naïve if you think that "culture" isn't a creation of the elites. How about next year you try getting into the Met gala by telling them how much you love culture and how it gives your life meaning?

And how arrogant are you to say people don't have a purpose in life if they're simply existing? I've got news for you, but that's what the vast majority of people throughout history do. They go about their lives, they find enjoyment and love, they work, they die, that's life. They don't need some thousand year old building to give their life meaning. Millions of people lived before Notre Dame was ever built, millions more have never heard of or seen Notre Dame, and their lives are just as vivid and meaningful as anyone else's. "Culture" doesn't give their lives meaning, they do. They're not dependent on any work of art or any organization to imbue their lives with meaning, and the fact that you think they are just makes my argument for me.

You're hitting on exactly the problem. You think that some building standing for a long time or some painting being preserved for a long time is a way to cheat death, to gain immortality, it's not. Everything fades to dust, everything. Your precious rocks and paint, steel and iron, and people. One day, one way or another, Notre Dame is going to be as gone as the people who built it. One day there won't be anyone left to remember Notre Dame or what it stood for. There's no such thing as permanence, and your obsession with objects of "culture" is just your way of fooling yourself into thinking there is. And hey, I would have zero problems with that if we focused on taking care of people before we focused on taking care of inanimate objects, but we don't. On the contrary, I think the elite in our society spend more time and effort preserving objects than they do helping people, which is why I have no problem seeing their "culture" burn.

I don't get why you are fixated on the wealthy. You seem to be strawmanning this argument into something it's not. Feeling sad or upset that a cultural landmark was destroyed does not mean you are saying you don't care for people. WTF? Yes, they raised money for renovations, but does that compare to the hundreds of billions of dollars France spends on its people annually? You have this incredibly narrow view of culture as the plaything of the wealthy. It's not. I'm sure their are aspects of culture that are heavily influenced by wealthy people, but there are hundreds of cultures and societies where that's not the case whatsoever.

And i call total bullshit on the idea that the vast majority of people throughout history simply just live their lives existing. Every civilization has searched for meaning and purpose and has expressed that through their culture. Whether on a big or small level. Look at dig sites for ancient societies. You'll find tons of artifacts that have nothing to do with survival, but rather had individual meaning. As for me, I like culture. I like that something exists that's bigger than me. That makes me think about more than just the mundane. Otherwise, you just end up being a hateful, cynical person shaking your fist at the world and hoping it all burns down. I dont want that for myself.