Notre-Dame Cathedral is burning

[Generations]

When one "side" thinks that a thousand year old building containing some of the most culturally impressive architecture and artworks is only as important as the religious meaning it holds? Yeah...I'll reiterate, you're a damn fool. That's some ISIS level "smash statues with sledgehammers" type shit.

[M3J]

You seem not to understand why the other side is okay with Notre Dame burning down, so I'll just let you stay in your ignorant bubble.

 

You mean, ISIS smashing their own mosques for no reason as compared to people who see Notre Dame as a bad symbol being okay with it burning down due to error during renovation? Still sounding like a fool. Anyway, this is not my argument to make, I'm not happy about the building burning down given its history and architecture.

[Scott Eastwood]

What I don't get is why people automatically assume that the people who donated to Notre Dame, didn't donate to other causes through the years. Truth is if they have a ton of money they probably donated it to several different things (without making a big deal), They do get major tax breaks (at least here) for doing so

[Bdon]

Ironic coming from you, Gen. But I'd rather be a fool who can understand both sides than remain ignorant, so whatever. Jeez.

Both of you are generally ignorant and act shitty. Gen is bad in his own way. While you are entitled to your opinion, I will say it's ignorant to say that places of worship are ok with pedophilia. Yes there are known instances in the Catholic Church and we hear about it often. Not all places of worship are advocates or perpetrators though. Over generalized statement.

 

That said, while I don't disagree with Gen here, he's overreacting to your opinions only like Gen can.

 

I need that meme that says you're both just awful. You both represent the toxicity of the internet a good portion of the time. Keyboard warriors if you like labels.

 

Final thought. I don't care what others do with their money but it does show how screwed up our priorities are. It's a shame such a historical place burned but they'll recover and I do see so many people on social media that care more about reacting because everyone else is, other than reacting based on their actual concerns for the landmark.

[LEGION]

 

Ironic coming from you, Gen. But I'd rather be a fool who can understand both sides than remain ignorant, so whatever. Jeez.

Both of you are generally ignorant and act shitty. Gen is bad in his own way. While you are entitled to your opinion, I will say it's ignorant to say that places of worship are ok with pedophilia. Yes there are known instances in the Catholic Church and we hear about it often. Not all places of worship are advocates or perpetrators though. Over generalized statement.

 

That said, while I don't disagree with Gen here, he's overreacting to your opinions only like Gen can.

 

I need that meme that says you're both just awful. You both represent the toxicity of the internet a good portion of the time. Keyboard warriors if you like labels.

 

Final thought. I don't care what others do with their money but it does show how screwed up our priorities are. It's a shame such a historical place burned but they'll recover and I do see so many people on social media that care more about reacting because everyone else is, other than reacting based on their actual concerns for the landmark.

 

The kettle calling the pot black

[Creepy Bro]

Okay the new update is they were able to save the main building by the looks of it all is the roof and the Spires everything else is fine the artifacts are safe as excited my guests are going to rebuild it and restore it back to what it originally look like it's just going to be a brand new roof Inspire but they were able to salvage and save the main building

 

Not related but kind of a scary thought that I was watching a documentary hour-by-hour of the London Fire at the same time this is happening

 

[Bdon]

 

 

Ironic coming from you, Gen. But I'd rather be a fool who can understand both sides than remain ignorant, so whatever. Jeez.

Both of you are generally ignorant and act shitty. Gen is bad in his own way. While you are entitled to your opinion, I will say it's ignorant to say that places of worship are ok with pedophilia. Yes there are known instances in the Catholic Church and we hear about it often. Not all places of worship are advocates or perpetrators though. Over generalized statement.

 

That said, while I don't disagree with Gen here, he's overreacting to your opinions only like Gen can.

 

I need that meme that says you're both just awful. You both represent the toxicity of the internet a good portion of the time. Keyboard warriors if you like labels.

 

Final thought. I don't care what others do with their money but it does show how screwed up our priorities are. It's a shame such a historical place burned but they'll recover and I do see so many people on social media that care more about reacting because everyone else is, other than reacting based on their actual concerns for the landmark.

 

The kettle calling the pot black

 

ok buddy

[M3J]

 

Ironic coming from you, Gen. But I'd rather be a fool who can understand both sides than remain ignorant, so whatever. Jeez.

Both of you are generally ignorant and act shitty. Gen is bad in his own way. While you are entitled to your opinion, I will say it's ignorant to say that places of worship are ok with pedophilia. Yes there are known instances in the Catholic Church and we hear about it often. Not all places of worship are advocates or perpetrators though. Over generalized statement.

 

That said, while I don't disagree with Gen here, he's overreacting to your opinions only like Gen can.

 

I need that meme that says you're both just awful. You both represent the toxicity of the internet a good portion of the time. Keyboard warriors if you like labels.

 

Final thought. I don't care what others do with their money but it does show how screwed up our priorities are. It's a shame such a historical place burned but they'll recover and I do see so many people on social media that care more about reacting because everyone else is, other than reacting based on their actual concerns for the landmark.

 

You're another one who can't talk about others actin badly. And there are enough places of worship that are okay with or overlook pedophilia, when none of them should.

"keyboard warriors." Lulz, just because we/I care about social issues and other people. You've acted way more toxic, and maybe almost as toxic as Gen if not more. No need to accuse others of the same behavior.

[Bdon]

 

 

Ironic coming from you, Gen. But I'd rather be a fool who can understand both sides than remain ignorant, so whatever. Jeez.

Both of you are generally ignorant and act shitty. Gen is bad in his own way. While you are entitled to your opinion, I will say it's ignorant to say that places of worship are ok with pedophilia. Yes there are known instances in the Catholic Church and we hear about it often. Not all places of worship are advocates or perpetrators though. Over generalized statement.

 

That said, while I don't disagree with Gen here, he's overreacting to your opinions only like Gen can.

 

I need that meme that says you're both just awful. You both represent the toxicity of the internet a good portion of the time. Keyboard warriors if you like labels.

 

Final thought. I don't care what others do with their money but it does show how screwed up our priorities are. It's a shame such a historical place burned but they'll recover and I do see so many people on social media that care more about reacting because everyone else is, other than reacting based on their actual concerns for the landmark.

 

You're another one who can't talk about others actin badly. And there are enough places of worship that are okay with or overlook pedophilia, when none of them should.

"keyboard warriors." Lulz, just because we/I care about social issues and other people. You've acted way more toxic, and maybe almost as toxic as Gen if not more. No need to accuse others of the same behavior.

 

Sorry dude. I've been snarky before for sure but to say I'm worse than you or Gen.... Especially Gen here lately. He's growing more colorful and angry I've noticed. Even more so than before. And I haven't been suspended for talking about brown people like you. Just simmer down. We're all guilty, even me. Although other than snarky comments I really haven't been that toxic. Hell I've stepped away for a while so I haven't even been here much lately. So am I really wrong here?

 

Anyway the way you worded it made it sound like places of worship in general participated or defended it which is lunacy. The catholic church has had many stories of such things happening. Now the stories of the abuse of Nuns a few months back. Just seems like we have a place to point fingers or at least investigate. To lump the rest in is ignorant and irresponsible however.

[maskedmaniac]

To lump every person for the sins of a few is a major lack of judgement in itself. Kinda like saying all black people are criminals because of the riots in LA or Baltimore, or saying all white people are racist because of KKK and the like.

[Monkey D. Jiggy]

 

 

M3J, that's retarded...and you should slap your own damn self for even entertaining ideas like that. Whatever conspiracy theories may or may not surround the catholic church, France, etc...it was a treasured landmark that held historical and artistic meaning. Don't be a damn fool. If there's even a single part of your brain that says "there goes a thousand year old building...but I'm fine with it, because religion is weird and those people might be pedophiles"...nah, screw that absurd level of noise.

 

It's a building. It's a landmark. You don't need to consider anything more than that when it comes to appreciating the level of skill that went into its construction, or the fact that it has lasted as long as it has. You don't celebrate a sacrificial blood temple in the middle of the jungle because people were killed there...you celebrate it because it's a part of history. You don't say "we should bulldoze that temple because I don't support human sacrifice". There is zero parallel between appreciating a structure and supporting religious concepts. This isn't "billionaires donating to the Illuminati" or whatever these simpletons think it is...it's just people who appreciate the concept of preserving history.

What's retarded about that? I'm telling you (well, God of Lightning) what other people have said, and there are no theories around that, are there? Hasn't even the Pope talked about this?

 

Yes you can say "let's bulldoze that temple because it's horrible despite its bad history!"

 

Do you even understand why people are irked at the wealthy donating hundreds of millions of dollars to a building? It's not them donating that has people annoyed, it's the fact that they're willing to donate to an object instead of helping fund stuff that can help people, like providing Flint clean water again or reducing homelessness and hunger. People's anger is justified.

 

And before you accuse me of some other shit, I don't like that the building burned down. I can understand why many are okay or happy about it though

It's not justified, that's some stupid ass reasoning from people who aren't even sincerely concerned with what ever tragedy they bring up that should get donations over the Notre Dame-thing.

 

If they were actually concerned with Gaza, kids in Africa, Flint, etc., they would've been active in collecting money for that cause and if they are, they would do that without complaining about Notre Dame. Because this is an important cause to donate to, that's indisputable. But the what about-ers do complain, because there's this cultural thing right now where it's really important for people to show how awesome and superior their morals are and this is a straight-forward way to do it. They don't really CARE care, they just want to pat their own back to impress people they don't care about so that they're perceived as a upstanding good person. That's why you now have multimillionaire pro footballers echoing these kind of statements now, because it helps boost their brand. It's really transparent.

 

 

People who concern themselves with tragedy A and actually make an effort by donating money do not need to concern themselves with tragedy B to please the fake concerns of randoms on Twitter, especially those who don't even do shit. Those people need to shut the *Censored* up. As Gen said, you do a good thing and there's always someone who has a problem with it.

[Faster Than Light]

I co-sign Jiggy's post.

[Creepia]

 

Ubisoft is donating $560,000+, and offering assistance in the form of concept art and 3D models in the rebuilding process of the building. You know...useless video game stuff.

 

And as great as that all is, I've been reading the most asinine comments on facebook about it. Stuff like "we can't feed the homeless, but we can rebuild a church"..."nice to see where the priorities of millionaires lie", "Flint Michigan needs clean water", etc. It's like...dude...this is about the arts preserving the arts. It isn't even a religious thing. It's about history and art, which were a driving factor behind the existence of the AC franchise, and are obviously important to the Ubisoft team. I swear...I hate people. You go out of your way to do good, and people still want you to do something else.

"Do good." Problem is, they can do good in other places too, or at least, the wealthy are getting criticized for being able to fund hundreds of millions of dollars for a building but won't even do anything for Flint or the three black churches burned down by a white supremacist.

 

 

 

 

I think people are happy with Notre Dame burning because of France's history with colonization and how religious places of worship usually are okay with pedophilia.

 

 

Man forget you

 

It's always you who turns this type of innocuous things into something completely political. Keep it bottled up for once, no one cares to hear it.

[M3J]

 

 

M3J, that's retarded...and you should slap your own damn self for even entertaining ideas like that. Whatever conspiracy theories may or may not surround the catholic church, France, etc...it was a treasured landmark that held historical and artistic meaning. Don't be a damn fool. If there's even a single part of your brain that says "there goes a thousand year old building...but I'm fine with it, because religion is weird and those people might be pedophiles"...nah, screw that absurd level of noise.

 

It's a building. It's a landmark. You don't need to consider anything more than that when it comes to appreciating the level of skill that went into its construction, or the fact that it has lasted as long as it has. You don't celebrate a sacrificial blood temple in the middle of the jungle because people were killed there...you celebrate it because it's a part of history. You don't say "we should bulldoze that temple because I don't support human sacrifice". There is zero parallel between appreciating a structure and supporting religious concepts. This isn't "billionaires donating to the Illuminati" or whatever these simpletons think it is...it's just people who appreciate the concept of preserving history.

What's retarded about that? I'm telling you (well, God of Lightning) what other people have said, and there are no theories around that, are there? Hasn't even the Pope talked about this?

 

Yes you can say "let's bulldoze that temple because it's horrible despite its bad history!"

 

Do you even understand why people are irked at the wealthy donating hundreds of millions of dollars to a building? It's not them donating that has people annoyed, it's the fact that they're willing to donate to an object instead of helping fund stuff that can help people, like providing Flint clean water again or reducing homelessness and hunger. People's anger is justified.

 

And before you accuse me of some other shit, I don't like that the building burned down. I can understand why many are okay or happy about it though

It's not justified, that's some stupid ass reasoning from people who aren't even sincerely concerned with what ever tragedy they bring up that should get donations over the Notre Dame-thing.

 

If they were actually concerned with Gaza, kids in Africa, Flint, etc., they would've been active in collecting money for that cause and if they are, they would do that without complaining about Notre Dame. Because this is an important cause to donate to, that's indisputable. But the what about-ers do complain, because there's this cultural thing right now where it's really important for people to show how awesome and superior their morals are and this is a straight-forward way to do it. They don't really CARE care, they just want to pat their own back to impress people they don't care about so that they're perceived as a upstanding good person. That's why you now have multimillionaire pro footballers echoing these kind of statements now, because it helps boost their brand. It's really transparent.

 

 

People who concern themselves with tragedy A and actually make an effort by donating money do not need to concern themselves with tragedy B to please the fake concerns of randoms on Twitter, especially those who don't even do shit. Those people need to shut the *Censored* up. As Gen said, you do a good thing and there's always someone who has a problem with it.

 

a lot of them do contribute though. They complain about Notre Dame because people are willing to donate money to an object instead of to people who actually need the money or assistance, unless Notre Dame does help out people.

[Scott Eastwood]

 

 

 

M3J, that's retarded...and you should slap your own damn self for even entertaining ideas like that. Whatever conspiracy theories may or may not surround the catholic church, France, etc...it was a treasured landmark that held historical and artistic meaning. Don't be a damn fool. If there's even a single part of your brain that says "there goes a thousand year old building...but I'm fine with it, because religion is weird and those people might be pedophiles"...nah, screw that absurd level of noise.

 

It's a building. It's a landmark. You don't need to consider anything more than that when it comes to appreciating the level of skill that went into its construction, or the fact that it has lasted as long as it has. You don't celebrate a sacrificial blood temple in the middle of the jungle because people were killed there...you celebrate it because it's a part of history. You don't say "we should bulldoze that temple because I don't support human sacrifice". There is zero parallel between appreciating a structure and supporting religious concepts. This isn't "billionaires donating to the Illuminati" or whatever these simpletons think it is...it's just people who appreciate the concept of preserving history.

What's retarded about that? I'm telling you (well, God of Lightning) what other people have said, and there are no theories around that, are there? Hasn't even the Pope talked about this?

 

Yes you can say "let's bulldoze that temple because it's horrible despite its bad history!"

 

Do you even understand why people are irked at the wealthy donating hundreds of millions of dollars to a building? It's not them donating that has people annoyed, it's the fact that they're willing to donate to an object instead of helping fund stuff that can help people, like providing Flint clean water again or reducing homelessness and hunger. People's anger is justified.

 

And before you accuse me of some other shit, I don't like that the building burned down. I can understand why many are okay or happy about it though

It's not justified, that's some stupid ass reasoning from people who aren't even sincerely concerned with what ever tragedy they bring up that should get donations over the Notre Dame-thing.

 

If they were actually concerned with Gaza, kids in Africa, Flint, etc., they would've been active in collecting money for that cause and if they are, they would do that without complaining about Notre Dame. Because this is an important cause to donate to, that's indisputable. But the what about-ers do complain, because there's this cultural thing right now where it's really important for people to show how awesome and superior their morals are and this is a straight-forward way to do it. They don't really CARE care, they just want to pat their own back to impress people they don't care about so that they're perceived as a upstanding good person. That's why you now have multimillionaire pro footballers echoing these kind of statements now, because it helps boost their brand. It's really transparent.

 

 

People who concern themselves with tragedy A and actually make an effort by donating money do not need to concern themselves with tragedy B to please the fake concerns of randoms on Twitter, especially those who don't even do shit. Those people need to shut the *Censored* up. As Gen said, you do a good thing and there's always someone who has a problem with it.

 

a lot of them do contribute though. They complain about Notre Dame because people are willing to donate money to an object instead of to people who actually need the money or assistance, unless Notre Dame does help out people.

 

can you prove that? I see a lot of my friends post similar stuff by I know they do a lot nothing when it comes to helping, and truth is they would be the same if they had lots of money

[Monkey D. Jiggy]

Let's say they do contribute. They don't, but let's say they do. Then they should simply shut the *Censored* up and carry on with what they're doing without "calling out" Notre Dame-donators. If big French company owners want to help restore a French monument in Notre Dame, regardless of how it "helps people", they should not be vilified for it or get told to do something about some *censored*ed up town in a country that has nothing to do with them, if they don't want to do that. I'd go back to saying that those that do that, are more concerned with looking good than the causes they're bringing up.

 

It's their money. If you want those amounts of money to go to people who actually need it or whatever, then get rich like them and do it yourself.

[Generations]

Besides, you know...all the wealthy people who do donate to causes like hunger and homelessness. I mean...there is a lot of that already. It doesn't end just because other people donate to restoring a landmark.

 

I feel like the cathedral shouldn't have any government funded repairs, and I could totally understand people getting pissy about the French government paying for it. But...that's not even what these people are up in arms about. They're trying to say that the landmark isn't worth saving just because there are other problems...and that's a load of shit. That's "an eye for an eye" 101. That's how you burn the world down...

[Mango kid]

So accord ing to notra dame they only received 10 percent of all the dollars pledge for donation it just rich people saying they do it. But doesn't

[Monkey D. Jiggy]

Oh. So all that debating was for nothing.

[M3J]

Not really, and also kinda depends because people are now wondering why the wealthy aren't helping Sudan or Yemen when they were all too happy to give millions of dollars to Notre Dame.

[Mango kid]

Not really, and also kinda depends because people are now wondering why the wealthy aren't helping Sudan or Yemen when they were all too happy to give millions of dollars to Notre Dame.

But they didn't they said they were going to but they didn't

[Monkey D. Jiggy]

Not really, and also kinda depends because people are now wondering why the wealthy aren't helping Sudan or Yemen when they were all too happy to give millions of dollars to Notre Dame.

And as it turns out now, they aren't helping Notre Dame either, so everybody wins.

 

Unless Austin has his facts wrong. But I never doubt Austin.

[M3J]

 

Not really, and also kinda depends because people are now wondering why the wealthy aren't helping Sudan or Yemen when they were all too happy to give millions of dollars to Notre Dame.

And as it turns out now, they aren't helping Notre Dame either, so everybody wins.

 

Unless Austin has his facts wrong. But I never doubt Austin.

 

Austin also said 10%, so they did help Notre Dame somewhat. What happened to that money, then?

[Monkey D. Jiggy]

 

 

 

Not really, and also kinda depends because people are now wondering why the wealthy aren't helping Sudan or Yemen when they were all too happy to give millions of dollars to Notre Dame.

And as it turns out now, they aren't helping Notre Dame either, so everybody wins.

 

Unless Austin has his facts wrong. But I never doubt Austin.

Austin also said 10%, so they did help Notre Dame somewhat. What happened to that money, then?

I don't see how, but you're missing the point.

 

The gist of is that the debating on the donations became pointless when most of them didn't even donate. I don't give a shit about 10% when a whopping 90% isn't going to do shit. I'm defending funds that weren't given.

 

That 10% isn't even from the wealthy French billionaires representing multinationals that have been criticized in this debate. It came from legitimate charity organizations, loads of them American even. Random generous donators. And you can't be mad at regular Joe's donating to a worthy cause.

 

I first said there's no point in debating it as a light-hearted comment as the lack of actual donations made me feel like I've wasted my time a bit, but having looked into it, there really isn't a point.

 

Until they actually do start donating, but as I've read, they won't pay a cent until they're satisfied with how the money will be used when the rebuilding stage has already started and when they already need help paying the workers.

 

When they do that, then there's a point. Now, the debate is basically dead.

[M3J]

I was joking... but not about the fate of the rest of the money. Wonder if the 90% went back to the wealthy "donors" somehow.