Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral

[Shoblongoo]

On 4/16/2019 at 1:22 AM, Jotari said:

Can't be the only one whose mind is wandered in this direction.

*cue Hunchback of Notre Dame*

Is it bad that I went straight to  oh wow. New season of Game of Thrones is lit

Edited April 17, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[Azure the Scale Tipper]

2 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Is it bad that I went straight to  oh wow. New season of Game of Thrones is lit

Well, no one could have seen the fire coming, so yeah.

GoT may still be under fire in controversy for this (no pun intended).

[FrostyFireMage]

Of course the Twitter edgelords are being all sanctimonious about this and asking why they're spending so much on a centuries-old piece of architectural art and important part of history 

[Shoblongoo]

Hey remember when the island full of brown people that America technically owns didn't have electricity or clean for a year, and all Trump could be bothered to do about it was taunt mayors and local officials on twitter:

 

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Hey remember when the island full of brown people that America technically owns didn't have electricity or clean for a year, and all Trump could be bothered to do about it was taunt mayors and local officials on twitter:

 

I'm seeing this attitude floating around a lot and I don't really like it. Yes, Rich people care more about a building than the impoverished. That's not necessarily a good thing. But not doing something for the impoverished doesn't mean doing something for the arts is a bad thing. We have two good things here. Feeding the hungry and restoring an ancient monument. If someone has a lot of money it'd be great for them to do both. But when they do one, shaming them for not doing the other, I just don't see the benefit of that. They're separate issues. There's a lot of shit going on in the world that people could do more to help out with, but when they are helping out with something that many people do attach value to, I can't see that as a bad thing.

[Tetragrammaton]

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'm seeing this attitude floating around a lot and I don't really like it. Yes, Rich people care more about a building than the impoverished. That's not necessarily a good thing. But not doing something for the impoverished doesn't mean doing something for the arts is a bad thing. We have two good things here. Feeding the hungry and restoring an ancient monument. If someone has a lot of money it'd be great for them to do both. But when they do one, shaming them for not doing the other, I just don't see the benefit of that. They're separate issues. There's a lot of shit going on in the world that people could do more to help out with, but when they are helping out with something that many people do attach value to, I can't see that as a bad thing.

If a king cares more about his fame than his subjects.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

I'm seeing this attitude floating around a lot and I don't really like it. Yes, Rich people care more about a building than the impoverished. That's not necessarily a good thing. But not doing something for the impoverished doesn't mean doing something for the arts is a bad thing. We have two good things here. Feeding the hungry and restoring an ancient monument. If someone has a lot of money it'd be great for them to do both. But when they do one, shaming them for not doing the other, I just don't see the benefit of that. They're separate issues. There's a lot of shit going on in the world that people could do more to help out with, but when they are helping out with something that many people do attach value to, I can't see that as a bad thing.

It's not but he made it worse because of what he's promised in the past and when he and his supporters insist saying that he's keeping his promises and accomplishing "so much", they only make it worse.

Anyone could argue that any other president would probably reach out to France for aid on the reconstruction but Trump's failings with providing aid to Puerto Rico and communities in the US that need the aid aren't exactly accidents or that he's incapable of doing anything, it's deliberate and part of his racist nature.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

It's not but he made it worse because of what he's promised in the past and when he and his supporters insist saying that he's keeping his promises and accomplishing "so much", they only make it worse.

Anyone could argue that any other president would probably reach out to France for aid on the reconstruction but Trump's failings with providing aid to Puerto Rico and communities in the US that need the aid aren't exactly accidents or that he's incapable of doing anything, it's deliberate and part of his racist nature.

Trump be Trump. I don't know what tomfoolery he's getting up to at the moment. I was more speaking to the general attitude that many rich people are donating tonnes of cash and people are critisizing them for it.

[FrostyFireMage]

I bet if it were a non-Catholic religious structure like say the Taj Mahal in need of repairs nobody would be bothered

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, FrostyFireMage said:

I bet if it were a non-Catholic religious structure like say the Taj Mahal in need of repairs nobody would be bothered

I highly dispute that. I'd be bothered for one. And I'm sure about a billion Indians would be pretty upset too. Taj Mahal gets over seven million visitors a year, why do you think no one would care if it were destroyed?

EDIT: Or wait, do you mean no one would be bothered by people donating money? Perhaps you meant that angle, and maybe you're right. Not sure. We just have to wait for some other great monument to suffer damage to see the result.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Jotari

[Tetragrammaton]

38 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I highly dispute that. I'd be bothered for one. And I'm sure about a billion Indians would be pretty upset too. Taj Mahal gets over seven million visitors a year, why do you think no one would care if it were destroyed?

EDIT: Or wait, do you mean no one would be bothered by people donating money? Perhaps you meant that angle, and maybe you're right. Not sure. We just have to wait for some other great monument to suffer damage to see the result.

There is a Jerusalem mosque burnt the same day Notre Dame church got burnt. Do you ever know?

[Jotari]

41 minutes ago, Tetragrammaton said:

There is a Jerusalem mosque burnt the same day Notre Dame church got burnt. Do you ever know?

No, but does Al-Aqsa get over ten million visitors a year (answer's no because nonMuslims aren't even allowed to visit it)? The Taj Mahal (which is a Muslim building incidentally) is a much better example as it is a world famous building that people travel the globe to see. I've never even heard of Al-Aqsa until your comment prompted me to google it (and as the third most important Muslim site in the world, that could possibly be a failing of the education system. If the number one Mecca suffered damaged people would know all about it though). For many people Notre Dame is obviously something of religious importance, but for many people it's also of historical importance. I'd feel the same way if the Great Wall of China or the Pyramids suffered significant damage.

[eclipse]

On 4/17/2019 at 3:56 PM, Jotari said:

I'm seeing this attitude floating around a lot and I don't really like it. Yes, Rich people care more about a building than the impoverished. That's not necessarily a good thing. But not doing something for the impoverished doesn't mean doing something for the arts is a bad thing. We have two good things here. Feeding the hungry and restoring an ancient monument. If someone has a lot of money it'd be great for them to do both. But when they do one, shaming them for not doing the other, I just don't see the benefit of that. They're separate issues. There's a lot of shit going on in the world that people could do more to help out with, but when they are helping out with something that many people do attach value to, I can't see that as a bad thing.

Puerto Rico is a US territory.  France is not.  Take care of your own and all.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Puerto Rico is a US territory.  France is not.  Take care of your own and all.

Should Puerto Rico be treated well by the US? Absolutely. I think it should have statehood so they can have actual representation in their country. Along with Guam, the US Virgin Isles and that other place the Japanese like to go on holiday to. I just don't think it's necessarily related to this topic.

[FrostyFireMage]

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

I highly dispute that. I'd be bothered for one. And I'm sure about a billion Indians would be pretty upset too. Taj Mahal gets over seven million visitors a year, why do you think no one would care if it were destroyed?

EDIT: Or wait, do you mean no one would be bothered by people donating money? Perhaps you meant that angle, and maybe you're right. Not sure. We just have to wait for some other great monument to suffer damage to see the result.

The latter

[Hanes]

On 4/16/2019 at 6:25 AM, LJwalhout said:

Something you also can't replicate is the history of a building like Nôtre Dame. A building as old as Notre Dame has experienced so many different centuries and even if you you rebuild Nôtre Dame, these events you're simply unable to replicate.

The thought of this is the tragedy and paranoia of historians... damn whoever did this burning :( 

On the other hand now I wager people are going to start visiting there way more because of the burning, heck I didn't even know it existed.

[eclipse]

13 hours ago, Jotari said:

Should Puerto Rico be treated well by the US? Absolutely. I think it should have statehood so they can have actual representation in their country. Along with Guam, the US Virgin Isles and that other place the Japanese like to go on holiday to. I just don't think it's necessarily related to this topic.

It sort-of is.  It's like giving money to your distant cousin who's struggling, while ignoring your stepchild, who hasn't had new shoes in a year.  It's also a reflection on what the president prioritizes.

[Interdimensional Observer]

20 hours ago, Jotari said:

I've never even heard of Al-Aqsa until your comment prompted me to google it (and as the third most important Muslim site in the world, that could possibly be a failing of the education system. If the number one Mecca suffered damaged people would know all about it though).

And since the Al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock/Noble Sanctuary are the Muslim claims in Jerusalem which contribute to the Old City's contentious atmosphere, it rather important to know about. Although it's just a small and localized part of the much greater Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and solving it would be far from solving the rest of it.

I believe the fourth holiest site in Islam somewhere else in the West Bank. I think off the top of my head I think it's in Hebron- the Tomb of the Patriarchs (Abraham and like two other males + wives). Although who cares about no. 4?

 

14 hours ago, Jotari said:

Should Puerto Rico be treated well by the US? Absolutely. I think it should have statehood so they can have actual representation in their country. Along with Guam, the US Virgin Isles and that other place the Japanese like to go on holiday to. I just don't think it's necessarily related to this topic.

Given Puerto Rico would mean another 2 solidly Democratic electoral votes and another 2 Senate seats, I have real doubts about this. Not to mention the vocal and memey 51 stars complainers.

I'll assume Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands would likewise add up to 8 more Democratic electorals and Senators. I'm not sure about any more, because there is that 435 limit to voting members in the House of Representatives. And I don't know if the House seats taken by the new island states would be removed from California or other populous Democratic bastions- you certainly can't take House seats from Wyoming.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer
Corrected the voting members number in the House

[Cure Naga]

@Interdimensional Observer

5 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'm not sure about any more, because there is that 438 limit to House of Representatives

Why do they have a limit as to how many people can be part of the House of Representatives?

Sorry if this is a dumb question.

[Interdimensional Observer]

31 minutes ago, Cure Naga said:

Why do they have a limit as to how many people can be part of the House of Representatives?

Wasn't sure why, but this .gov webpage seems to explain it unbiasedly. Someone else can double check it for accuracy.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Apportionment/Determining-Apportionment/

So according to it, it's just to keep the number of Representatives manageable. And at the time this was decided in 1911, it isn't enshrined in the Constitution itself, there were 433 members. They added two to the limit to account for when Arizona and New Mexico got into the Union, but they didn't do the same with Alaska and Hawaii later, so Puerto Rico would more likely than not steal House seats from another state.

Then there are 6 non-voting (aka powerless) members in the House for Washington D.C. and the various island territories, for 441 members in the House. I mistakenly said 438 before because of the website 538, which apparently counts the Electoral College, not the House + Senate, which is almost the same as the Electoral College in number.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, eclipse said:

It sort-of is.  It's like giving money to your distant cousin who's struggling, while ignoring your stepchild, who hasn't had new shoes in a year.  It's also a reflection on what the president prioritizes.

If it was a zero sum situation where he could only give money to one of the two I'd agree. But America could easily do both, they just choose not to. IE, I don't think they're helping their cousin at the expense of their step child. The stepchild would be getting a raw deal regardless.

4 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

And since the Al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock/Noble Sanctuary are the Muslim claims in Jerusalem which contribute to the Old City's contentious atmosphere, it rather important to know about. Although it's just a small and localized part of the much greater Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and solving it would be far from solving the rest of it.

I believe the fourth holiest site in Islam somewhere else in the West Bank. I think off the top of my head I think it's in Hebron- the Tomb of the Patriarchs (Abraham and like two other males + wives). Although who cares about no. 4?

 

Given Puerto Rico would mean another 2 solidly Democratic electoral votes and another 2 Senate seats, I have real doubts about this. Not to mention the vocal and memey 51 stars complainers.

I'll assume Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands would likewise add up to 8 more Democratic electorals and Senators. I'm not sure about any more, because there is that 435 limit to voting members in the House of Representatives. And I don't know if the House seats taken by the new island states would be removed from California or other populous Democratic bastions- you certainly can't take House seats from Wyoming.

Electorial seats is probably the reason no more states are being added, and that can't really be solved without some preexisting state generously giving up some of their power (or they could just change the upper limit, being part of the constitution doesn't mean it's unchangeable). I can solve the star situation by suggesting they fuse the listed states together with Hawaii to create "Atlanto Pacific America" or some such state.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Jotari

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

If it was a zero sum situation where he could only give money to one of the two I'd agree. But America could easily do both, they just choose not to. IE, I don't think they're helping their cousin at the expense of their step child. The stepchild would be getting a raw deal regardless.

. . .and you don't see why the bold is a huge problem?

[Jotari]

Just now, eclipse said:

. . .and you don't see why the bold is a huge problem?

Oh yes I do see it as a problem. I'm no fan of American policies. You've pulled me up on unnecessary critisizing their penal system in this very thread. America has tonnes of problems. I just think when the administration does do something nice it should be celebrated rather than attacked for not being the "right" nice thing.

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

Oh yes I do see it as a problem. I'm no fan of American policies. You've pulled me up on unnecessary critisizing their penal system in this very thread. America has tonnes of problems. I just think when the administration does do something nice it should be celebrated rather than attacked for not being the "right" nice thing.

There's a difference between deriding the death penalty (which may or may not be relevant, especially if the fire was an accident) versus pointing out where aid money goes to (which is very relevant to those that live in Puerto Rico).  Finances and whatnot affect policies here, and if there's enough money to give to a first-world country to restore a historic site, then there's enough money to ensure that people living in a US territory have access to clean water and electricity.

It's not that giving money to fix the Notre Dame is bad.  It's bad that our politicians responded to the Notre Dame incident with more alacrity than a disaster area.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

There's a difference between deriding the death penalty (which may or may not be relevant, especially if the fire was an accident) versus pointing out where aid money goes to (which is very relevant to those that live in Puerto Rico).  Finances and whatnot affect policies here, and if there's enough money to give to a first-world country to restore a historic site, then there's enough money to ensure that people living in a US territory have access to clean water and electricity.

It's not that giving money to fix the Notre Dame is bad.  It's bad that our politicians responded to the Notre Dame incident with more alacrity than a disaster area.

I just think that the US doesn't care about Puerto Ricans is something that would be as equally true with or without the fire. It hasn't shed any new light on the situation. But maybe that's because I'm rather cynical from the start.