Notre Dame

[Guest MattP]

Given the welfare bill in Britain and France has risen and risen year after year to a huge amount of our tax intake, if the problem of poverty was going to be solved by increasing funding it would already have been. Homelessness is a far more complex problem than just throwing millions at it and then presuming it will go away.

 

As for Notre Dame being "just a building" - it isn't. There is a reason firefighters were running into it whilst no one was inside to save things in it and to try and save the structure, they wouldn't be doing that to an abandoned warehouse on fire.

 

I can't imagine how uncultured some people can be to have such a view on such beautiful things - these are symbols of Europe that if we let die, our culture and history goes with it.

[StanSP]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I can't imagine how uncultured some people can be to have such a view on such beautiful things - these are symbols of Europe that if we let die, our culture and history goes with it.

Not sure if that's directed at my post or not but it's one thing I tried to avoid if anything! Didn't want to come across as uncultured at all! 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Not sure if that's directed at my post or not but it's one thing I tried to avoid if anything! Didn't want to come across as uncultured at all! 

Not at all, directed at Ozleicester. 

 

Although I feel ridiculous now saying I can't believe how uncultured an Australian can be

Edited 17 April 2019 by MattP

[Innovindil]

On today's episode of virtue signalling with oz. 

 

[ozleicester]

19 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

On today's episode of virtue signalling with oz. 

 

You may want to figure out what your pathetic attempts at insult actually mean.

 

"virtue-signalling is making a statement because you think it will garner approval, rather than because you actually believe it."

 

It is more than evident from all the dummy spitting and cheap insults proffered on this site that i dont think for one moment my opinions will garner approval. Childish attempts to divert the discussion away by insulting me are not just a waste, but evidence of intellect.

[Innovindil]

27 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

You may want to figure out what your pathetic attempts at insult actually mean.

 

"virtue-signalling is making a statement because you think it will garner approval, rather than because you actually believe it."

 

It is more than evident from all the dummy spitting and cheap insults proffered on this site that i dont think for one moment my opinions will garner approval. Childish attempts to divert the discussion away by insulting me are not just a waste, but evidence of intellect.

Calm down snowflake. 

[Facecloth]

Dan Snow made a good point on the radio last night. When you have buildings of this historical significance, its basically an atm for future generations. These buildings will always attract visitors, so will always make money and create jobs.

 

I agree on the point about people coming forward with money for this so quickly, whilst other things are neglected. Matt's right that homelessness etc won't be solved by giving people themselves more money, but it will be solved by funding in other areas, and its disappointing that billionaires are so keen to fund something like this that will garner attention, but not help fund community projects, that would help the most needy in society.

[Babylon]

4 hours ago, StanSP said:

Can see where @ozleicester is coming from.

Money can immediately or freely be given so quickly to restoring an historical building (which is fine) but why is that money (or some of it) also not given to helping avoid children's homelessness? 

Do you have a copy of his or his companies accounts to know that it's not. There aren't many billionaires that don't have their own charities or foundations, it's one of the biggest tax write offs going. So even if it's just for those purposes, they are likely to be donating many millions to different charities each year. 

[Babylon]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Im confused why you would ask, and i have no need to answer to anonymous nobodies on the internet but meh whatever.  No i havent abstained... but have i given to the homeless and charities in the recent past, then yes. OK?

 

Personalising this is particularly irrelevant and typical of how to deal with issues that upset you. 

 

My point was that two people alone, can give 300 million euros to a building  (that is supported by a group that is wealthy enough to build a million homes), while 30,000 THIRTY THOUSAND children have NO HOME  and will sleep on the streets in France tonight. 

 

Tell me, would you rather 300 million euros go to helping the poor and homeless... or to a wealthy corporation that does not need it?

 

There are not 30,000 children sleeping rough on the streets of France. There might be 30,000 children classed as homeless. ie. not living in permanent accommodation you could call a home, but in the main they have a roof over their heads, like they do in this country if it's needed and wanted. These stats are purposely misleading, a bit like how anyone earning under €1,026 is arbitrarily classed as being in poverty when they might not be. 

 

The majority of homeless are foreigners who have chosen to leave their countries, pass though several others and decided to stop in France. You cannot conceivably attempt to rectify this by just chucking money at it like that. You could buy them all a house, but all that will achieve is for hundreds of thousands, if not millions more will leave their homes in other countries because they have heard of the free houses being given away in France!!

Edited 17 April 2019 by Babylon

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 hours ago, StanSP said:

Can see where @ozleicester is coming from.

Money can immediately or freely be given so quickly to restoring an historical building (which is fine) but why is that money (or some of it) also not given to helping avoid children's homelessness? 

 

Aside from all the religious stuff which may get spouted at any given time, when you weigh up the two, it does make you think. 

 

Not trying to downplay the tragedy (it is one) of the fire of a hugely significant building and architectural wonder - literally 1000 years of history going up in smoke - but that doesn't mean we can't ignore the question of where's that money to help avoid people sleeping on the street? Weighing up the two - would someone rather see a person, be it a child or not, potentially die on the street or see a building restored? 

Nicely put. Oz makes a point... poorly. For instance, we don't know if the people who have donated 100s of millions of Euros haven't also donated similarly to other charities.

 

We might as well rage at the world of art. The most expensive painting sold went for a little over $450m. A painting by a guy dead for 500 years (so he's not getting a penny!) Why? Basically because of some vacuous concept of beauty, the perception of it and the pretentious vanity of wanting to display your wealth. There are other factors more altruistic, but it can't be denied... there is a huge discrepancy between the value we put on art (be it how much money we give to sportsmen and women to how much we pay for works of art) and the value of human lives.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Nick Knowles and the DIY SOS crew would rebuild it free of charge and it would probably only take them a weekend max.

[ozleicester]

11 hours ago, Babylon said:

There are not 30,000 children sleeping rough on the streets of France. There might be 30,000 children classed as homeless. ie. not living in permanent accommodation you could call a home, but in the main they have a roof over their heads, like they do in this country if it's needed and wanted. These stats are purposely misleading, a bit like how anyone earning under €1,026 is arbitrarily classed as being in poverty when they might not be. 

 

The majority of homeless are foreigners who have chosen to leave their countries, pass though several others and decided to stop in France. You cannot conceivably attempt to rectify this by just chucking money at it like that. You could buy them all a house, but all that will achieve is for hundreds of thousands, if not millions more will leave their homes in other countries because they have heard of the free houses being given away in France!!

So they arent homeless enough, or poor enough, or are..... foreigners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

There is no need for anyone to donate for it’s rebuilding.  Hopefully the Church recognise this and donate the money to a deserving charity.

[ozleicester]

4 hours ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

There is no need for anyone to donate for it’s rebuilding.  Hopefully the Church recognise this and donate the money to a deserving charity.

[Babylon]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

So they arent homeless enough, or poor enough, or are..... foreigners.

 

 

Not what I said, but I suppose that's the sort I'd reply I'd expect when I've fact checked your rhetoric.

[Babylon]

17 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Nicely put. Oz makes a point... poorly. For instance, we don't know if the people who have donated 100s of millions of Euros haven't also donated similarly to other charities.

 

We do know it, you'd only have to google their names to find foundations they've set up and the like. Although perhaps that doesn't count as it's not the correct good cause for some. 

[ozleicester]

"No sooner had Pinault pledged his €100m, then his consigliere, Jean-Jacques Aillagon, sprang forth to suggest that all such donations should receive a 90% tax deduction. In other words, the French public should pay for most of its beloved billionaires’ generosity."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/18/billionaires-donations-notre-dame-france-inequality?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1n1X_ch5URNDCv2UWFxNAG0WXrcFbakTMVeiGQoH8uEgat_OvzJfZwFZY#Echobox=1555621695

[Guest]

I've read that it was a miracle that the bees on the roof survived. It's just a shame that God didn't protect his church isn't it? Perhaps it was a message from God to let Notre Dame go, or even for the people to burn down the rest of HIs churches.

[Unabomber]

7 hours ago, FIF said:

I've read that it was a miracle that the bees on the roof survived. It's just a shame that God didn't protect his church isn't it? Perhaps it was a message from God to let Notre Dame go, or even for the people to burn down the rest of HIs churches.

Why would god send a message to burn down his own churches? 

[Buce]

51 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Why would god send a message to burn down his own churches? 

 

He moves in mysterious ways, apparently.

[ozleicester]

3 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Why would god send a message to burn down his own churches? 

Paedophiles?

To be fair, we are dealing with a guy who flooded the entire planet last time he was pissed off, so...

Edited 23 April 2019 by ozleicester

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Why would god send a message to burn down his own churches? 

Who am I to  question God's motives? Why did he allow notre Dame to be burnt down? Why didn't he protect it? How hard can that be for a God?

[Finnegan]

Bloomin nora, more edge in here than a dodecahedron. 

[Izzy]

To all you non believers on here, just remember one thing........Jesus loves you 

[MC Prussian]

On 17/04/2019 at 07:49, ozleicester said:

Im confused why you would ask, and i have no need to answer to anonymous nobodies on the internet but meh whatever.  No i havent abstained... but have i given to the homeless and charities in the recent past, then yes. OK?

 

Personalising this is particularly irrelevant and typical of how to deal with issues that upset you. 

 

My point was that two people alone, can give 300 million euros to a building  (that is supported by a group that is wealthy enough to build a million homes), while 30,000 THIRTY THOUSAND children have NO HOME  and will sleep on the streets in France tonight. 

 

Tell me, would you rather 300 million euros go to helping the poor and homeless... or to a wealthy corporation that does not need it?

 

You are slightly conflating two different issues - one is historic, one is social.

 

First of all, the official report these numbers are based upon doesn't make it clear whether "30'000 children will sleep on the streets in France tonight". That's you being populist.

https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1281324

 

All it does is measure the amount of people using these services. It does state that 80'000 people are without home ("sans domicile"), accompanied by 30'000 children, yet that doesn't automatically mean that they are purely and/or factually "homeless", meaning having no place to go at night. Also no word on how many of these people are lying about their status (for various reasons) and for how long these people have been homeless and/or how temporary their status is.

You'll find that many of the people using these services are foreigners without a job and single mothers with children. Why is that?

This is where the actions should be taking place - tackle the cause of the problem, not its consequences.

 

The actual amount of factual homeless people in France, adults and children alike, remains unknown. With all certainty, it surely is fluctuating. A bit like the unemployment rate - you can never get rid of it completely, but at least lower it to a more socially acceptable level.

 

I also think that the French authorities should know best how to deal with this domestic issue, without us having to virtue signal all the time, looking from the outside in.

Australians should care most about Australian issues first, just as much as the British should take care of their domestic issues first. Argue from a healthy domestic basis before trying to make the rest of the world a better place.

 

Let's not forget France also has other issues to deal with, and their authorities have to set priorities accordingly.

As a case in point, poverty in general is a problem in France, affecting roughly nine million people - eighty times as many as there are homeless:

https://www.thelocal.fr/20181108/report-the-shocking-truth-about-poverty-in-france-in-2018

 

With regards to Notre Dame, reconstructing such a historic building does need massive amount of money and time. Lack of blueprints and similar rebuilding cases make this a unique undertaking. And I agree it has a historic relevancy that should not be underestimated. These buildings are meant to be marveled at based on the accomplishment in itself, just as much as the Roman Ruins in Rome - the Taliban bombing the Buddha statues in Bamyan, Afghanistan was also a crime against culture.

 

I'm sure you wouldn't argue against rebuilding Notre Dame, no?

We can agree that money should be spent in order to balance out domestic social issues, whilst at the same time taking care of the country's historic and cultural legacy.

Edited 23 April 2019 by MC Prussian