Notre Dame is burning

Scritto da Steve Aoki, 18.04.2019 at 06:56

Scritto da Waffel, 16.04.2019 at 18:27

When people are willing to collect a total of 700 million euros for the restauration of one church in only 1 day, yet saving the earth is still a huge no.

Don't you love the human kind..

Considering how much this.. catastrophe.. was in the news, donating for restoration is hella of publicity.

Plus after its restored those people will rush there to measure dicks on who helped more. You cant really do that in Africa without getting ebola or some shit, so yeah D

But I wasn't only refering to Africa.

There is so much more in the world that should have, moraly speaking, a higher priority for these amounts of money instead of the restauration of a building like this. Sure you're right about the fact that its all about publicity and dickmeasuring, but that shouldn't justify it though.

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 07:51

But I wasn't only refering to Africa.

There is so much more in the world that should have, moraly speaking, a higher priority for these amounts of money instead of the restauration of a building like this. Sure you're right about the fact that its all about publicity and dickmeasuring, but that shouldn't justify it though.

I'm not justifying, i'm just explaining. Personally i think of them as idiots.
And was only referring to Africa 'cause arguably its the place that needs the most help so to speak. But i got ya point.

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 07:51

There is so much more in the world that should have, moraly speaking, a higher priority for these amounts of money instead of the restauration of a building like this. Sure you're right about the fact that its all about publicity and dickmeasuring, but that shouldn't justify it though.

What a cancer take on this.. Yeah let's spend millions of dollars making Star Wars movies and Shakira music videos but god forbid we restore a globally renowned piece of art and culture. Why don't you donate all your money to charity, then go work to earn more so you can donate that too. Morally speaking, it's a higher priority than spending your time shittalking online.

Ppl crying and shit over a cathedral burning down and their shinny art being damaged , talk about 1st world problems xD

Scritto da Acquiesce, 18.04.2019 at 18:29

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 07:51

There is so much more in the world that should have, moraly speaking, a higher priority for these amounts of money instead of the restauration of a building like this. Sure you're right about the fact that its all about publicity and dickmeasuring, but that shouldn't justify it though.

What a cancer take on this.. Yeah let's spend millions of dollars making Star Wars movies and Shakira music videos but god forbid we restore a globally renowned piece of art and culture. Why don't you donate all your money to charity, then go work to earn more so you can donate that too. Morally speaking, it's a higher priority than spending your time shittalking online.

Take it easy champ. No need to try and go personal just because you don't agree with it.

I am sure most of the people, including me, aren't denying the fact from what time and what era this building is from, but the fact this situation gets milked to the last drip and all becomes a publicity thing with what millionaire can spend the most amount of money on, like steve mentioned above, is what my comment was directed at.

If you want to lash out some bottled up emotions be my guest, but don't come with this ad hominem bullshit if you expect an actual response. It doesn't suit you.

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 18:58

Scritto da Acquiesce, 18.04.2019 at 18:29

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 07:51

There is so much more in the world that should have, moraly speaking, a higher priority for these amounts of money instead of the restauration of a building like this. Sure you're right about the fact that its all about publicity and dickmeasuring, but that shouldn't justify it though.

What a cancer take on this.. Yeah let's spend millions of dollars making Star Wars movies and Shakira music videos but god forbid we restore a globally renowned piece of art and culture. Why don't you donate all your money to charity, then go work to earn more so you can donate that too. Morally speaking, it's a higher priority than spending your time shittalking online.

Take it easy champ. No need to try and go personal just because you don't agree with it.

I am sure most of the people, including me, aren't denying the fact from what time and what era this building is from, but the fact this situation gets milked to the last drip and all becomes a publicity thing with what millionaire can spend the most amount of money on, like steve mentioned above, is what my comment was directed at.

If you want to lash out some bottled up emotions be my guest, but don't come with this ad hominem bullshit if you expect an actual response. It doesn't suit you.

Where was the ad hominem
Anyway what would you define as a higher priority and what as a lower priority for ''all that money''

Scritto da 4nic, 18.04.2019 at 19:12

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 18:58

Scritto da Acquiesce, 18.04.2019 at 18:29

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 07:51

There is so much more in the world that should have, moraly speaking, a higher priority for these amounts of money instead of the restauration of a building like this. Sure you're right about the fact that its all about publicity and dickmeasuring, but that shouldn't justify it though.

What a cancer take on this.. Yeah let's spend millions of dollars making Star Wars movies and Shakira music videos but god forbid we restore a globally renowned piece of art and culture. Why don't you donate all your money to charity, then go work to earn more so you can donate that too. Morally speaking, it's a higher priority than spending your time shittalking online.

Take it easy champ. No need to try and go personal just because you don't agree with it.

I am sure most of the people, including me, aren't denying the fact from what time and what era this building is from, but the fact this situation gets milked to the last drip and all becomes a publicity thing with what millionaire can spend the most amount of money on, like steve mentioned above, is what my comment was directed at.

If you want to lash out some bottled up emotions be my guest, but don't come with this ad hominem bullshit if you expect an actual response. It doesn't suit you.

Where was the ad hominem
Anyway what would you define as a higher priority and what as a lower priority for ''all that money''

inb4 "We could be sending all of that money to Africa, or buy aid for people in South Sudan- because western-backed local warlords definitely don't just steal those resources and kneecap anyone who opposes them : )"

Scritto da 4nic, 18.04.2019 at 19:12

Where was the ad hominem
Anyway what would you define as a higher priority and what as a lower priority for ''all that money''

You couldnt spot the ad hominem, because you barely understand a thing someone says due to your lack of reading comprehension. That has been shown in your previous posts.

Anyways if I was interested into an endless discussion with me summing up an endless list of higher priorities than a reconstruction of a building and then me having to defend every single one example of that list one by one, just because someone can't use his own rationality to come up with a more higher priority than a reconstruction, I would have already done that. Obviously I am not interested into doing that, because otherwise I would've already responded to Garde's comment. Thats what I mean with your lack of reading comprehension.

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 19:52

Scritto da 4nic, 18.04.2019 at 19:12

Where was the ad hominem
Anyway what would you define as a higher priority and what as a lower priority for ''all that money''

You couldnt spot the ad hominem, because you barely understand a thing someone says due to your lack of reading comprehension. That has been shown in your previous posts.

Anyways if I was interested into an endless discussion with me summing up an endless list of higher priorities than a reconstruction of a building and then me having to defend every single one example of that list one by one, just because someone can't use his own rationality to come up with a more higher priority than a reconstruction, I would have already done that. Obviously I am not interested into doing that, because otherwise I would've already responded to Garde's comment. Thats what I mean with your lack of reading comprehension.

What previous posts, who gives a fuck about forum posts. As far as i know i couldve been drunk/stoned/tired while writing some, or didnt bother to/ or read the full context. there could be many reasons obviously.

You arent interested in listing reasons because you are scared of making a fallacy. Which are very prevalent with you.

And about aquis ''ad hominem'' he wasnt attacking your character at all, but he did refute the cancer you wrote.

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 18:58

Take it easy champ.

Sorry if I came off too personal , I just think you are smart enough not to post such nonsense. It drives me absolutely nuts seeing people harping on about how it's wrong to spend money restoring this church when there's so many things that are less worthy of our money that we spend billions on and don't stop for a moment to question. I consider some several hundred million an absolute steal for a historic landmark that's probably going to pay for itself anyways with tourism. Certainly it's just as valid a use of money as building another 5 billion dollar football stadium.

Scritto da sirivann, 18.04.2019 at 18:56

Ppl crying and shit over a cathedral burning down and their shinny art being damaged , talk about 1st world problems xD

It's precisely because we have cathedrals and "shinny art" that we are the 1st world. lol

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 19:52

Scritto da 4nic, 18.04.2019 at 19:12

...
Anyway what would you define as a higher priority and what as a lower priority for ''all that money''

... endless discussion with me summing up an endless list of higher priorities than a reconstruction of a building ... just because someone can't use his own rationality to come up with a more higher priority than a reconstruction, I would have already done that. ....

Let me give just one example of a higher priority because it's easy enough. Feeding a starving person.

Given the choice between saving a building, even an historical one - and saving a life (perhaps someone dying of hunger) i'd like to think most people would choose saving life (without getting into philosophical questions, such as 'what if the life was that of criminal, etc.' ) I am talking about the life of someone presumed innocent at the mercy of economic/political factors.

Anyone who values human life, can't put a financial cost on it, yet when a tragedy such as the burning of an historical site happens, it brings into sharp focus the truth that there are people with deep financial resources who value 'things' more than human life, and would consciously choose to spend their financial resources to save a 'thing' (in this case a church) over saving not only one life, but hundreds, or even thousands of lives.

In my view, what Waffel says isn't cancer.. the cancer, if there is any to be found, is that most of the world now accepts a financial system that implicitly and explicitly values materialism over human life. Unless i am wildly misinterpreting, i think this is all Waffel is saying.

[Ironically, the religion to which the church is dedicated, teaches among its many principals, that souls are of greater concern than the material world.]

Scritto da brianwl, 18.04.2019 at 22:01

[Ironically, the religion to which the church is dedicated, teaches among its many principals, that souls are of greater concern than the material world.]

Do you live in the first world? Have you ever purchased something that isn't absolutely necessary to your survival? If yes, you are complicit in not saving human lives around the globe, people you could have fed. Certainly more must be done to help those in poverty around the world, a lot more. But I am instantly skeptical when people start to clamor that our art and culture is not worth the cost of preservation. Especially when those same people will fall completely silent at the wasteful consumerism that characterizes the modern world. The Avengers cost $250 million to produce.. I don't remember people complaining that that money could have been donated to Aid for Africa. PS: In case you aren't aware, the Catholic Church is far and away the largest charitable organization in the world, and there's nothing ironic about maintaining something material which brings joy to millions and enriches our lives.

Note also: your hypothetical is universally applicable. Should we invest in space exploration or use that money to feed people? Should we produce, purchase, and play video games while there are hungry people out there? Is it even moral to buy medicine for yourself? You may survive without it, but no one will survive without food.

Scritto da Acquiesce, 18.04.2019 at 22:56

Art and culture.
Well thats one way to call a golden church.

Lol how much blood do you guys think that church was built upon anyways talking about culture and shit with stolen gold probably and wealth taken from the poor

Scritto da Steve Aoki, 18.04.2019 at 23:55

Art and culture.
Well thats one way to call a golden church.

Are you going to explain which part is incorrect? If you can't see that this piece of architecture is culturally significant to catholics and the french and is also a gorgeous piece of art then you're simply a barbarian.

Tl;dr West is the best, fuck the rest

Scritto da Steve Aoki, 18.04.2019 at 23:55

Scritto da Acquiesce, 18.04.2019 at 22:56

Art and culture.
Well thats one way to call a golden church.

Its historical significance far outweighs whatever amount of gold it was built with or inside it. You heathen.

Scritto da Acquiesce, 19.04.2019 at 11:23

Are you going to explain which part is incorrect? If you can't see that this piece of architecture is culturally significant to catholics and the french and is also a gorgeous piece of art then you're simply a barbarian.

To be frank they are both correct. I'm just questioning the fact that majority of religious "art and culture" pieces for some reason also have quite a material value, and not because they represent something divine, but because their shit is made out of gold.

And even tho i recognize historic value of that "object" you can still call me a barbarian because i'm not going to recognize a sanity behind having a church thats both worth and posses stuff worth tens of billions $.

Scritto da Acquiesce, 18.04.2019 at 22:56

Scritto da brianwl, 18.04.2019 at 22:01

[Ironically, the religion to which the church is dedicated, teaches among its many principals, that souls are of greater concern than the material world.]

... Have you ever purchased something that isn't absolutely necessary to your survival? If yes, you are complicit in not saving human lives around the globe, people you could have fed. ... I am instantly skeptical when people start to clamor that our art and culture is not worth the cost of preservation. Especially when those same people will fall completely silent at the wasteful consumerism that characterizes the modern world. The Avengers cost $250 million to produce.. I don't remember people complaining that that money could have been donated to Aid for Africa. ...

Note also: your hypothetical is universally applicable. Should we invest in space exploration or use that money to feed people? Should we produce, purchase, and play video games while there are hungry people out there? Is it even moral to buy medicine for yourself? You may survive without it, but no one will survive without food.

Exactly, and so it should be universally applicable. Most would agree, air, water, food, and basic shelter would fall into the category of universally accepted necessities. This isn't a difficult problem to overcome anymore outside of the current economic model. We have the infrastructure and distribution methods to provide the necessities for survival anywhere to anyone.

The question isn't: 'Should we spend the money on space exploration or feeding people?'

The question is: "If everyone is fed, wouldn't space exploration be more attainable?" (There are other considerations, but if we hold all variables constant for a moment, the people who are hungry now could refocus their energy from finding food at any cost, to contributing to space exploration. This contribution does not necessarily need to be skilled... they could be the people that sweep up or support the astronauts and engineers after they do their thing. )

[As a related aside, the sweep up people we have now frequently have multiple degrees, including masters and PhDs - i can say with confidence that in Canada at least we have Russian Physicists with PhD's, and engineers from India and China, who have immigrated but can't find work, so are sweeping up at McDonald's, while the homegrown Canadian Physicists and engineers that couldn't find a job are franchise owner's of those McDonald's, or if they are lucky are teaching elementary students math and science. In other words, whether it be space exploration (insert any monumental human endeavour here) or feeding the hungry, we have a surplus of food and a surplus of educated and trained people to get the job done. The barrier... the ONLY barrier now, is something that isn't even real: There aren't enough 'numerical entries' in a computerized 'bank account'... [i.e. money is now so abstract, most of us can live without ever touching it].

And once you realize how money is actually created, you realize all these problems can be solved by changing 'a single line of code.'

Put another way: We have the human resources, we have the material resources... it's all that is necessary.

For those who question the sanity of this, who think 'money' is somehow necessary, consider survivors cut off from society: when stranded on an island or a mountain side after a shipwreck or plane crash, they go straight to 'work' (human resources) and gathering food/making shelters (material resources).
They don't first set up a legal/commercial law/banking system so they have an economic model in order to function ♥ As such, the food/shelter should be primary or fundamental, and at best, the legal/commercial secondary. Although i personally think the building of churches, space programs etc. can also be done without a legal/commercial system... just watch high school/college age students with a passion for this.. they do it not for money (they aren't even getting paid) but because they simply find satisfaction in the challenges of the work itself.

Scritto da Steve Aoki, 19.04.2019 at 13:05

Scritto da Acquiesce, 19.04.2019 at 11:23

Are you going to explain which part is incorrect? If you can't see that this piece of architecture is culturally significant to catholics and the french and is also a gorgeous piece of art then you're simply a barbarian.

To be frank they are both correct. I'm just questioning the fact that majority of religious "art and culture" pieces for some reason also have quite a material value, and not because they represent something divine, but because their shit is made out of gold.

And even tho i recognize historic value of that "object" you can still call me a barbarian because i'm not going to recognize a sanity behind having a church thats both worth and posses stuff worth tens of billions $.

Theres a sanity behind making a building beautiful with gold and other priceless metals, life is worth living if its surrounded by beauty. You should realise france is not serbia in which theres a risk of putting gold inside a church due to it being stolen immidietly.

Scritto da 4nic, 19.04.2019 at 13:37

Theres a sanity behind making a building beautiful with gold and other priceless metals, life is worth living if its surrounded by beauty. You should realise france is not serbia in which theres a risk of putting gold inside a church due to it being stolen immidietly.

..with the money of poor people, by exploiting faith and hope. Talking about humility while eating with golden spoons. Church main purpose shouldnt be tourism or the fact its an art. Its a 'house of god' where people should come to find peace and guidance, not to leave money in it because its required.

P.S. Are we really gonna trash our countries now? Cuzz.. serbia.. mace.. We both have enough material to go for at least 10 more pages. Its kinda pointless. D

Scritto da brianwl, 19.04.2019 at 13:21

Scritto da Acquiesce, 18.04.2019 at 22:56

Scritto da brianwl, 18.04.2019 at 22:01

[Ironically, the religion to which the church is dedicated, teaches among its many principals, that souls are of greater concern than the material world.]

... Have you ever purchased something that isn't absolutely necessary to your survival? If yes, you are complicit in not saving human lives around the globe, people you could have fed. ... I am instantly skeptical when people start to clamor that our art and culture is not worth the cost of preservation. Especially when those same people will fall completely silent at the wasteful consumerism that characterizes the modern world. The Avengers cost $250 million to produce.. I don't remember people complaining that that money could have been donated to Aid for Africa. ...

Note also: your hypothetical is universally applicable. Should we invest in space exploration or use that money to feed people? Should we produce, purchase, and play video games while there are hungry people out there? Is it even moral to buy medicine for yourself? You may survive without it, but no one will survive without food.

Exactly, and so it should be universally applicable. Most would agree, air, water, food, and basic shelter would fall into the category of universally accepted necessities. This isn't a difficult problem to overcome anymore outside of the current economic model. We have the infrastructure and distribution methods to provide the necessities for survival anywhere to anyone.

The question isn't: 'Should we spend the money on space exploration or feeding people?'

The question is: "If everyone is fed, wouldn't space exploration be more attainable?" (There are other considerations, but if we hold all variables constant for a moment, the people who are hungry now could refocus their energy from finding food at any cost, to contributing to space exploration. This contribution does not necessarily need to be skilled... they could be the people that sweep up or support the astronauts and engineers after they do their thing. )

[As a related aside, the sweep up people we have now frequently have multiple degrees, including masters and PhDs - i can say with confidence that in Canada at least we have Russian Physicists with PhD's, and engineers from India and China, who have immigrated but can't find work, so are sweeping up at McDonald's, while the homegrown Canadian Physicists and engineers that couldn't find a job are franchise owner's of those McDonald's, or if they are lucky are teaching elementary students math and science. In other words, whether it be space exploration (insert any monumental human endeavour here) or feeding the hungry, we have a surplus of food and a surplus of educated and trained people to get the job done. The barrier... the ONLY barrier now, is something that isn't even real: There aren't enough 'numerical entries' in a computerized 'bank account'... [i.e. money is now so abstract, most of us can live without ever touching it].

And once you realize how money is actually created, you realize all these problems can be solved by changing 'a single line of code.'

Put another way: We have the human resources, we have the material resources... it's all that is necessary.

For those who question the sanity of this, who think 'money' is somehow necessary, consider survivors cut off from society: when stranded on an island or a mountain side after a shipwreck or plane crash, they go straight to 'work' (human resources) and gathering food/making shelters (material resources).
They don't first set up a legal/commercial law/banking system so they have an economic model in order to function ♥ As such, the food/shelter should be primary or fundamental, and at best, the legal/commercial secondary. Although i personally think the building of churches, space programs etc. can also be done without a legal/commercial system... just watch high school/college age students with a passion for this.. they do it not for money (they aren't even getting paid) but because they simply find satisfaction in the challenges of the work itself.

true dat

Scritto da brianwl, 19.04.2019 at 13:21

The question isn't: 'Should we spend the money on space exploration or feeding people?'

Scritto da brianwl, 18.04.2019 at 22:01

Given the choice between saving a building, even an historical one - and saving a life (perhaps someone dying of hunger) i'd like to think most people would choose saving life

Either accept the question as valid or don't, you can't have it both ways. Either "feeding people" should occupy 100% of our time and efforts or else you accept that society has a valid interest in making room for other pursuits, space exploration and construction of churches, stadiums, etc...

Scritto da Acquiesce, 18.04.2019 at 22:56

Scritto da brianwl, 18.04.2019 at 22:01

[Ironically, the religion to which the church is dedicated, teaches among its many principals, that souls are of greater concern than the material world.]

Do you live in the first world? Have you ever purchased something that isn't absolutely necessary to your survival? If yes, you are complicit in not saving human lives around the globe, people you could have fed.

Scritto da brianwl, 18.04.2019 at 22:01

Scritto da Waffel, 18.04.2019 at 19:52

Scritto da 4nic, 18.04.2019 at 19:12

...
Anyway what would you define as a higher priority and what as a lower priority for ''all that money''

... endless discussion with me summing up an endless list of higher priorities than a reconstruction of a building ... just because someone can't use his own rationality to come up with a more higher priority than a reconstruction, I would have already done that. ....

Let me give just one example of a higher priority because it's easy enough. Feeding a starving person.

Given the choice between saving a building, even an historical one - and saving a life (perhaps someone dying of hunger) i'd like to think most people would choose saving life (without getting into philosophical questions, such as 'what if the life was that of criminal, etc.' ) I am talking about the life of someone presumed innocent at the mercy of economic/political factors.

Anyone who values human life, can't put a financial cost on it, yet when a tragedy such as the burning of an historical site happens, it brings into sharp focus the truth that there are people with deep financial resources who value 'things' more than human life, and would consciously choose to spend their financial resources to save a 'thing' (in this case a church) over saving not only one life, but hundreds, or even thousands of lives.

In my view, what Waffel says isn't cancer.. the cancer, if there is any to be found, is that most of the world now accepts a financial system that implicitly and explicitly values materialism over human life. Unless i am wildly misinterpreting, i think this is all Waffel is saying.

[Ironically, the religion to which the church is dedicated, teaches among its many principals, that souls are of greater concern than the material world.]

What good does saving others (which would be a never-ending task) do to us if, by neglecting our art, culture and thus, our identity, we're just left with our very own breathing? There's more to Notre Dame (and other monuments) than being just a church. Life is supposed to be the ultimate value we should all strive and preserve for us. But for it to actually be meaningful, there needs to be an imperative to care for our humanitarian identity - I say this about Notre Dame but I'd say this about Palmyra or any historical, artistic and cultural monument. I'm not saying we should neglect the protection of endangered lives, but this is sorta like killing even endangered animals just to feed people, because ultimately, the people will be fed and thus, our objectives attained, even if that means we stay poorer in soul.

Scritto da Acquiesce, 19.04.2019 at 16:24

Scritto da brianwl, 19.04.2019 at 13:21

The question isn't: 'Should we spend the money on space exploration or feeding people?'

Scritto da brianwl, 18.04.2019 at 22:01

Given the choice between saving a building, even an historical one - and saving a life (perhaps someone dying of hunger) i'd like to think most people would choose saving life

Either accept the question as valid or don't, you can't have it both ways. Either "feeding people" should occupy 100% of our time and efforts or else you accept that society has a valid interest in making room for other pursuits, space exploration and construction of churches, stadiums, etc...

Feeding people does not require 100% of society's efforts, so once one accepts this, then one can see both ways are possible. If feeding people only requires 10% of a society's efforts, the other 90% is available for artistic, architectural and technological advances.

Scritto da Al Fappino, 19.04.2019 at 18:10

..


What good does saving others (which would be a never-ending task) do to us if, by neglecting our art, culture and thus, our identity, we're just left with our very own breathing? There's more to Notre Dame (and other monuments) than being just a church. Life is supposed to be the ultimate value we should all strive and preserve for us. But for it to actually be meaningful, there needs to be an imperative to care for our humanitarian identity - I say this about Notre Dame but I'd say this about Palmyra or any historical, artistic and cultural monument. I'm not saying we should neglect the protection of endangered lives, but this is sorta like killing even endangered animals just to feed people, because ultimately, the people will be fed and thus, our objectives attained, even if that means we stay poorer in soul.

Not clear if you are suggesting we can't 'save' others without neglecting art culture and identity. Correct me if i misinterpreted this, but all i'm suggesting is all of these are possible. You can work the land to grow food in the morning, help build the church in the afternoon, write/compose/sculpt your masterpeice in the evening and protect your wife and child from the invading zombies or fires (insert whatever threat here) at night.

Scritto da brianwl, 19.04.2019 at 21:14

Scritto da Al Fappino, 19.04.2019 at 18:10

..


What good does saving others (which would be a never-ending task) do to us if, by neglecting our art, culture and thus, our identity, we're just left with our very own breathing? There's more to Notre Dame (and other monuments) than being just a church. Life is supposed to be the ultimate value we should all strive and preserve for us. But for it to actually be meaningful, there needs to be an imperative to care for our humanitarian identity - I say this about Notre Dame but I'd say this about Palmyra or any historical, artistic and cultural monument. I'm not saying we should neglect the protection of endangered lives, but this is sorta like killing even endangered animals just to feed people, because ultimately, the people will be fed and thus, our objectives attained, even if that means we stay poorer in soul.

Not clear if you are suggesting we can't 'save' others without neglecting art culture and identity. Correct me if i misinterpreted this, but all i'm suggesting is all of these are possible. You can work the land to grow food in the morning, help build the church in the afternoon, write/compose/sculpt your masterpeice in the evening and protect your wife and child from the invading zombies or fires (insert whatever threat here) at night.

I'm basically saying that we shouldn't condemn the will to save art and culture arguing that the resources directed at it neglect life and its protection as some are implying. We can do both things, but we need to accept those who turn to the art, rather to life, when it comes to dedicate resources and from what I feel, people are just dissing those who praise the art and magnificence of the Notre Dame Cathedral to a point they donate millions and millions to restore it, when they could have done it with life: in short, its our humanitarian duty to account for both art and culture and life

What use is feeding african children today? they will be hungry again tomorrow, Africa needs a long term plan and their countries need to learn to be self sustainable, the colonial times happened a century ago, its no longer an excuse or a victim card for all these countries, they are just too corrupt, the money does not go to its intended place. I dont wanna help them, i have my own little beautiful country in Europe which i try to sustain, and make the best i can for it.

What do i gain except fake virtue by helping those who barely help themselves?
Some westerners are so far down this virtue hole, they don't see how counter-intuitive it is, its the reason why the western way of life and its art and culture is in a massive decline.
People like waffel would like to see the Notre dame be replaced with a migrant facility maybe? Or maybe it should stay in ruin and decay and no one should have done anything about it.