Notre Dame on fire

Snap

I just think its a shame that such a beautiful building that's been there for 850 years has been damaged so badly. That's about it., no more no less. I'd feel the same if it were Big Ben. Notre Dame is a lovely building and these things always amaze me in that they were built using maths and paper and graft (oh and the odd bit of slavery of course).

Whereas today we don't half build some drab things. Where's the gargoyles, cornices, spires, and all that stuff?

It'll get rebuilt.

I did think about the destruction of relics though - now that relic business is some hokum for sure. Bit's of Christ's cross? The crown of thorns?? Hmm, right. Tales of tallness there, I think.

WiresDreamDisasters

Snap said:

I just think its a shame that such a beautiful building that's been there for 850 years has been damaged so badly. That's about it., no more no less. I'd feel the same if it were Big Ben. Notre Dame is a lovely building and these things always amaze me in that they were built using maths and paper and graft (oh and the odd bit of slavery of course).

Whereas today we don't half build some drab things. Where's the gargoyles, cornices, spires, and all that stuff?

It'll get rebuilt.

I did think about the destruction of relics though - now that relic business is some hokum for sure. Bit's of Christ's cross? The crown of thorns?? Hmm, right. Tales of tallness there, I think.

This documentary opened my eyes to the ... er... eyesores that can be found in our cities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

I think he's 100% correct, and it's going to be a damn shame when London is replete with shitty Shard copies across it's skyline.

Dour oppressive buildings that fundamentally shift people's attitudes towards their surroundings, causing crime, pollution, and hopelessness. What a wonderful world we live in.

roberty

The organist started playing when I visited and I was a bit overwhelmed and had to sit down. I read later that the organist that day was world renowned. It's probably fucked now

VimFuego

roberty said:

The organist started playing when I visited and I was a bit overwhelmed and had to sit down. I read later that the organist that day was world renowned. It's probably fucked now

thought I'd read somewhere that the organ wasn't that badly damaged and was repairable. Could be mistaken tho. I hope it is, never heard it myself, but looking at it, it must've been an incredible feeling. 

Teetonetal

A beautiful building for sure, but ultimately just a building. The money spent on repairing could be put to better use no doubt.

DB1

Teetonetal said:

A beautiful building for sure, but ultimately just a building. The money spent on repairing could be put to better use no doubt.

It represents more than just a building though, certainly to millions of people. I'd say the value is priceless really - just my opinion, speaking as a non-Catholic and not a particularly religious bloke. It's quite astonishing to see how its plight has moved so many people. 

Octafish

I bet Macron's rubbing his hands in glee. In the face of recent unrest in Paris and the yellow jacket movement, he will want to turn it into his own Blair's 'Lady Di - Queen of hearts' moment. Unity, coming together, healing the nation etc will be the rhetoric of choice, not that I'm a cynic at all

ToneControl

The video I saw of the inside showed about 10% of the damage I was imagining

ICBM

Teetonetal said:

A beautiful building for sure, but ultimately just a building. The money spent on repairing could be put to better use no doubt.

Perhaps, but if they’re going to restore it exactly as it was, the vast majority of the money will need to be spent on high skill level traditional craftsmanship, which is a worthwhile thing to do anyway. Those wages will be paid almost entirely to French people, I expect - the French are much keener on not importing foreign contractors than we are - so the money will feed back into the economy. In the end it may be less money spent than invested.

Jalapeno

sweepy said:

I’m more annoyed that the wealthiest organisation on Earth isn’t paying for the Repairs themselves and by the looks of it, it will be State funded alongside personal donations 

It's owned by the French state

fretmeister

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Snap

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Yes, but that is their choice. They have given their money freely, for a cause they want to help. You can't force people to support things. Harsh, but IMO all part of free choice etc. You take that principle further and you could argue that people should only contribute to charities that "someone" deems worthy. Kind of defeats the point really, again IMO.

Had another thought on this - another reason I don't agree with you is that it could be argued that charity relieves an administration of some of the responsibility for fixing a social ill, like homelessness. As long as charities support and help, the burden on a government is lowered. Not that I am advocating withdrawing charity, just posing an argument.

WiresDreamDisasters

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Yes, but that is their choice. They have given their money freely, for a cause they want to help. You can't force people to support things. Harsh, but IMO all part of free choice etc.

Absolutely this.

Jalapeno

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Because they're worth it !

darthed1981

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Yes, but that is their choice. They have given their money freely, for a cause they want to help. You can't force people to support things. Harsh, but IMO all part of free choice etc.

Absolutely this.

Of course absolutely that.

But nobody is saying they should be MADE to spend the money on the homeless and not Notre Dame.

People are lamenting that in a few hours they could find 600 million euros they didn't need, and so very few billionaires (with notable exceptions) ever use it for helping the poor and desperate.

The world's ills could be solved, or at least very much mitigated, relatively easily, but those with the means don't want to do it.

Simple stick Google and Apple's cash piles together, and you would have 250 billion dollars, far more than is needed to wipe out global starvation and provide everyone with clean water.

Google and Apple ON THEIR OWN could change the world, but they don't!

WiresDreamDisasters

darthed1981 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Yes, but that is their choice. They have given their money freely, for a cause they want to help. You can't force people to support things. Harsh, but IMO all part of free choice etc.

Absolutely this.

Of course absolutely that.

But nobody is saying they should be MADE to spend the money on the homeless and not Notre Dame.

People are lamenting that in a few hours they could find 600 million euros they didn't need, and so very few billionaires (with notable exceptions) ever use it for helping the poor and desperate.

The world's ills could be solved, or at least very much mitigated, relatively easily, but those with the means don't want to do it.

Simple stick Google and Apple's cash piles together, and you would have 250 billion dollars, far more than is needed to wipe out global starvation and provide everyone with clean water.

Google and Apple ON THEIR OWN could change the world, but they don't!

Well don't let Microsoft off the hook. They'll plow millions into the idea of circumcising African men through their Gates Foundation, but they wont fund drinking water.

Shit... these companies wouldn't fund armies to go into these countries and remove the warlords and the gangsters in order to free the people.

They're just tech companies man. Don't fall for the hype, they're not and never will be social saviours.

Axe_meister

600m pays for a lot of Jobs in restoring and materials so preventing people being poor and homeless.

ICBM

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

That's true. It's the modern equivalent of the kings and dukes who paid for the building of the cathedrals in the first place - they thought they were buying their way into heaven.

Snap said:

Had another thought on this - another reason I don't agree with you is that it could be argued that charity relieves an administration of some of the responsibility for fixing a social ill, like homelessness. As long as charities support and help, the burden on a government is lowered. Not that I am advocating withdrawing charity, just posing an argument.

This is also true, and the main reason Clement Attlee went into politics - he had been a charity worker helping the homeless, and came to believe that relying on private charity was wrong. That's why we now have the comprehensive welfare state that we do.

darthed1981

WiresDreamDisasters said:

darthed1981 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Yes, but that is their choice. They have given their money freely, for a cause they want to help. You can't force people to support things. Harsh, but IMO all part of free choice etc.

Absolutely this.

Of course absolutely that.

But nobody is saying they should be MADE to spend the money on the homeless and not Notre Dame.

People are lamenting that in a few hours they could find 600 million euros they didn't need, and so very few billionaires (with notable exceptions) ever use it for helping the poor and desperate.

The world's ills could be solved, or at least very much mitigated, relatively easily, but those with the means don't want to do it.

Simple stick Google and Apple's cash piles together, and you would have 250 billion dollars, far more than is needed to wipe out global starvation and provide everyone with clean water.

Google and Apple ON THEIR OWN could change the world, but they don't!

Well don't let Microsoft off the hook. They'll plow millions into the idea of circumcising African men through their Gates Foundation, but they wont fund drinking water.

Shit... these companies wouldn't fund armies to go into these countries and remove the warlords and the gangsters in order to free the people.

They're just tech companies man. Don't fall for the hype, they're not and never will be social saviours.

You misunderstand me.

I'm saying they have a f*cking massive pile of money that could make an enormous difference to the world.

I'm not saying they would be the saviours themselves as global megacorporations, but they have the money to fund organisations that would make a difference.

I agree as well money alone would not fix countries run by warlords and gangsters, but a lot more countries dealing with poverty globally are run by much more reasonable people, and we don't do enough to help them either.

I trust Google as far as I can throw my Home Mini, and I throw like a girl

Axe_meister

Odd you say that of all the companies I have worked for (both directly and indirectly) Google have been the most trustworthy.