Author Topic: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition  (Read 648141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kid Icarus

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18225 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 02:55:40 pm »
I get that you think the Notre Dame money would have been better spent elsewhere. What I don't understand is why a massive public spending project to save a building of enormous cultural and historical significance is the spending you object to over, say, Avengers: Age of Ultron, which cost nearly $400m.

Why didn't Marvel give the money away, instead of trying to make more money with it? In not doing so, and they could certainly afford to, they've decided a comic book movie is more important than the Syrian war and African poverty, etc. We could go on like this all day. Someone donates to Cancer Research UK - why are they giving to white privileged people hoping to live a few more years when people in Third World Country X are starving and dying much younger?

Because you’re conflating the entire capitalist system and the reasons why people invest with charity, when they don’t function or have the same motivations in any comparable way.

Without capitalism and investment, Marvel wouldn’t have had $400m to give away in your example in the first place. Without capital and investment, Bernard Arnault and the others wouldn’t have had anything to donate. The issue isn’t with capitalism, but yes, hypothetically if the profits from that $400m investment were then hoarded by investors and it didn’t create any jobs and/or promote any growth then you’d find me objecting and do find me objecting when those things happen elsewhere.

The ‘we could go on all day’ part is exactly the point that I was making. When Stamford Bridge was brought up, you suggested that Notre Dame was more worthy of a donation because of its architectural value – that perfectly illustrates the point I’m making.

I could just as easily ask why you think Notre Dame is more worthy than someone donating to rebuild Stamford Bridge when it has historical significance, brings in tourists, and 40k of the local community go there, we could go on all day. I wouldn't personally make that point because Stamford Bridge being burned to the ground sounds ideal, but you see what I mean.


The point is that I wouldn't object to the latter. I may think that Notre Dame is more worthy than Stamford Bridge, but if a wealthy Chelsea fan tomorrow handed over the entire funding for it, why would I care? I'm not going to say he should have given it to Notre Dame, or the poor, or Newcastle United (cos we're completely skint as everyone knows). It's his hypothetical money, he can do what he likes with it.

Well it depends on the person, for me there's a very thin line between thinking something and saying something if I care about it, and as far as I can see 'I think x is more worthy than Notre Dame' is exactly the crux of what people are saying.

Dead in the middle of Little Italy little did we know that we riddled some middle men who didn't do diddely.


{o,o}
|)__)
-“-“-

Offline Kid Icarus

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18226 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 02:56:29 pm »
The ultra rich can blow me, IMO.

They good at it like? Some people get all the luck.

Not entirely sure, but Benevolent Blowies is a charity I think we can all get behind.

It was my horse in the grand national

:lol:

Mine was MASSIVE BEREAVEMENT.
Dead in the middle of Little Italy little did we know that we riddled some middle men who didn't do diddely.


{o,o}
|)__)
-“-“-

Offline BlueStar

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18227 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:03:43 pm »

The Government’s announcement of age verification measures for pornography sites has been overshadowed by an error which saw the contact details of hundreds of recipients exposed on the announcement email.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-6932157/Government-age-verification-tools-announcement-hit-email-gaffe.html

Simon McCoy on BBC News roasting the Culture Secretary on this when she was saying there wouldn't be a privacy problem storing all this data about people's porno habits because it would be protected

Might as well just sign-in thru facebook.

Well there's already "Share on Facebook" buttons on porn sites.  Apparently.

Offline Ian W

  • General Member
  • plus d'argent, plus de problemes
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18228 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:07:30 pm »
Hope he verified his age before roasting the culture secretary.

Offline Disco

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18229 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:11:59 pm »
Before the watershed too. Typical liberal luvvies at the BBC. Do they not care about our beloved children?

Offline Wullie

  • Administrator
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18230 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:16:16 pm »
Culture Secretary's a bloke isn't he? Jeremy Wright.
Jeff's Garage - Cheaper than some other garages.

Offline Thomson Mouse

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18231 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:20:41 pm »
I get that you think the Notre Dame money would have been better spent elsewhere. What I don't understand is why a massive public spending project to save a building of enormous cultural and historical significance is the spending you object to over, say, Avengers: Age of Ultron, which cost nearly $400m.

Why didn't Marvel give the money away, instead of trying to make more money with it? In not doing so, and they could certainly afford to, they've decided a comic book movie is more important than the Syrian war and African poverty, etc. We could go on like this all day. Someone donates to Cancer Research UK - why are they giving to white privileged people hoping to live a few more years when people in Third World Country X are starving and dying much younger?

Because you’re conflating the entire capitalist system and the reasons why people invest with charity, when they don’t function or have the same motivations in any comparable way.

Without capitalism and investment, Marvel wouldn’t have had $400m to give away in your example in the first place. Without capital and investment, Bernard Arnault and the others wouldn’t have had anything to donate. The issue isn’t with capitalism, but yes, hypothetically if the profits from that $400m investment were then hoarded by investors and it didn’t create any jobs and/or promote any growth then you’d find me objecting and do find me objecting when those things happen elsewhere.

The ‘we could go on all day’ part is exactly the point that I was making. When Stamford Bridge was brought up, you suggested that Notre Dame was more worthy of a donation because of its architectural value – that perfectly illustrates the point I’m making.

I could just as easily ask why you think Notre Dame is more worthy than someone donating to rebuild Stamford Bridge when it has historical significance, brings in tourists, and 40k of the local community go there, we could go on all day. I wouldn't personally make that point because Stamford Bridge being burned to the ground sounds ideal, but you see what I mean.


The point is that I wouldn't object to the latter. I may think that Notre Dame is more worthy than Stamford Bridge, but if a wealthy Chelsea fan tomorrow handed over the entire funding for it, why would I care? I'm not going to say he should have given it to Notre Dame, or the poor, or Newcastle United (cos we're completely skint as everyone knows). It's his hypothetical money, he can do what he likes with it.

It is a cultural and national symbol and should absolutely be restored.

I suppose it comes down to personal thinking.

Me, right now would be thinking ‘nah the catholic has the money’, but then I’m not a billionaire with an ego the size of France and don’t fully understand the platitudes they’d get.

Me, right now, would rather give that money to something like the Grenfell victims, but as I said I’m not a ruthless billionaire
People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

Offline Wullie

  • Administrator
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18232 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:21:57 pm »
My understanding is that the Catholic Church don't own it, France do.
Jeff's Garage - Cheaper than some other garages.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18233 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:26:35 pm »
My understanding is that the Catholic Church don't own it, France do.
Its own by the French state. However for me its more a question of how we've come to the point that some can be so wealthy compared to others and their relationship with religion. It's not taking the p*ss to ask what Jesus would say ?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Offline BlueStar

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18234 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:43:42 pm »
Culture Secretary's a bloke isn't he? Jeremy Wright.

Sorry, they introduced her as Culture Minister but apparently she's "Minister of State for Digital and the Creative Industries", Margot James.

Offline Northerngimp

  • Brexit W*nker
  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18235 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:46:38 pm »
The modern Catholic church is nothing like the original teachings of Jesus.   Id imagine he would be furious seeing his teachings warped like that.  If he ever actually existed.
GO LEAFS GO!

Offline Thomson Mouse

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18236 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:52:11 pm »
My understanding is that the Catholic Church don't own it, France do.

Pretty sure France has the money too then.
People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

Offline Troll

  • Book Wanker
  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18237 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:53:40 pm »
My understanding is that the Catholic Church don't own it, France do.

Pretty sure France has the money too then.

Surely it's better coming from a billionaire than the taxpayer?

Offline Wullie

  • Administrator
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18238 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:55:10 pm »
I'm sure they do, via their taxpayers. So do these very rich French people who want to contribute and, in doing so, remove the burden from the state. Which would you prefer?
Jeff's Garage - Cheaper than some other garages.

Offline Kid Icarus

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18239 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:58:35 pm »
My understanding is that the Catholic Church don't own it, France do.

Pretty sure France has the money too then.

Surely it's better coming from a billionaire than the taxpayer?

Surely it's better that these billionaires just pay fair taxes...
Dead in the middle of Little Italy little did we know that we riddled some middle men who didn't do diddely.


{o,o}
|)__)
-“-“-

Offline Thomson Mouse

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18240 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:59:18 pm »
I'm sure they do, via their taxpayers. So do these very rich French people who want to contribute and, in doing so, remove the burden from the state. Which would you prefer?

Personally I’d prefer that they guaranteed people who needed it got it. I’ll wait and see how much does come from the Catholic Church though as I understand there’s a lot of fundraising money already coming in
People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

Offline TBG

  • King of GIF. WHAT?
  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18241 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 03:59:44 pm »
Surely a bit of T-Cut will sort it out.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18242 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 04:00:52 pm »
Are they actually donations by the billionaires, or are they from company profits?

Offline Kid Icarus

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18243 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 04:02:45 pm »
I'm sure they do, via their taxpayers. So do these very rich French people who want to contribute and, in doing so, remove the burden from the state. Which would you prefer?

For them to be fair taxpayers too and then maybe we wouldn't have to choose between burdening the state or relying on the rich to dole out money on a whim?
Dead in the middle of Little Italy little did we know that we riddled some middle men who didn't do diddely.


{o,o}
|)__)
-“-“-

Offline Wullie

  • Administrator
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18244 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 04:16:15 pm »
I'm sure they do, via their taxpayers. So do these very rich French people who want to contribute and, in doing so, remove the burden from the state. Which would you prefer?

For them to be fair taxpayers too and then we don't have to choose between burdening the state or relying on the rich to dole out money on a whim?

Can't say I know too much about the tax affairs of the donors but they're French so I assume they pay more than billionaires here do. What if they do pay all their tax, are they then allowed to do what they want with their money?

If I had a spare few billion pounds, I'd certainly be giving a canny bit away (what the f*** else would I do with it?) but I'd also be buying a football club located not too far away from me, frivolous money on a relative insignificance, money that I could have given to a worthy charity. If someone took a can of petrol to Durham Cathedral, I might even give them a few quid as it's my favourite building in the world (speaking as a rabid atheist). At what point would I be allowed to spend money on something I wanted to spend money on without criticism? :lol:
Jeff's Garage - Cheaper than some other garages.

Offline Kid Icarus

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18245 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 04:25:48 pm »
I'm sure they do, via their taxpayers. So do these very rich French people who want to contribute and, in doing so, remove the burden from the state. Which would you prefer?

For them to be fair taxpayers too and then we don't have to choose between burdening the state or relying on the rich to dole out money on a whim?

Can't say I know too much about the tax affairs of the donors but they're French so I assume they pay more than billionaires here do. What if they do pay all their tax, are they then allowed to do what they want with their money?

If I had a spare few billion pounds, I'd certainly be giving a canny bit away (what the f*** else would I do with it?) but I'd also be buying a football club located not too far away from me, frivolous money on a relative insignificance, money that I could have given to a worthy charity. If someone took a can of petrol to Durham Cathedral, I might even give them a few quid as it's my favourite building in the world. At what point would I be allowed to spend money on something I wanted to spend money on without criticism? :lol:

They're tax exilers who threatened to move to Belgium when France suggested putting taxes for high earners up, so they don't pay all their taxes.

The second paragraph is just missing the point. These are tax-dodging billionaires who haven't donated anything significant in their lives, but have now decided to get charitable and spend $200m on repairing a building.
Dead in the middle of Little Italy little did we know that we riddled some middle men who didn't do diddely.


{o,o}
|)__)
-“-“-

Online Kaizero

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18246 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 04:30:17 pm »
I'm sure they do, via their taxpayers. So do these very rich French people who want to contribute and, in doing so, remove the burden from the state. Which would you prefer?

For them to be fair taxpayers too and then we don't have to choose between burdening the state or relying on the rich to dole out money on a whim?

Can't say I know too much about the tax affairs of the donors but they're French so I assume they pay more than billionaires here do. What if they do pay all their tax, are they then allowed to do what they want with their money?

If I had a spare few billion pounds, I'd certainly be giving a canny bit away (what the f*** else would I do with it?) but I'd also be buying a football club located not too far away from me, frivolous money on a relative insignificance, money that I could have given to a worthy charity. If someone took a can of petrol to Durham Cathedral, I might even give them a few quid as it's my favourite building in the world. At what point would I be allowed to spend money on something I wanted to spend money on without criticism? :lol:

They're tax exilers who threatened to move to Belgium when France suggested putting taxes for high earners up, so they don't pay all their taxes.

The second paragraph is just missing the point. These are tax-dodging billionaires who haven't donated anything significant in their lives, but have now decided to get charitable and spend $200m on repairing a building.

As mentioned, they're not really being charitable as much as they're trying to one-up eachother 'cause that's what they've been doing for decades. The two luxury brand billionares that is.
If you have the opportunity to play this game of life you need to appreciate every moment.
A lot of people don't appreciate the moment until it's passed.

Offline Kid Icarus

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18247 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 04:34:25 pm »
I'm sure they do, via their taxpayers. So do these very rich French people who want to contribute and, in doing so, remove the burden from the state. Which would you prefer?

For them to be fair taxpayers too and then we don't have to choose between burdening the state or relying on the rich to dole out money on a whim?

Can't say I know too much about the tax affairs of the donors but they're French so I assume they pay more than billionaires here do. What if they do pay all their tax, are they then allowed to do what they want with their money?

If I had a spare few billion pounds, I'd certainly be giving a canny bit away (what the f*** else would I do with it?) but I'd also be buying a football club located not too far away from me, frivolous money on a relative insignificance, money that I could have given to a worthy charity. If someone took a can of petrol to Durham Cathedral, I might even give them a few quid as it's my favourite building in the world. At what point would I be allowed to spend money on something I wanted to spend money on without criticism? :lol:

They're tax exilers who threatened to move to Belgium when France suggested putting taxes for high earners up, so they don't pay all their taxes.

The second paragraph is just missing the point. These are tax-dodging billionaires who haven't donated anything significant in their lives, but have now decided to get charitable and spend $200m on repairing a building.

As mentioned, they're not really being charitable as much as they're trying to one-up eachother 'cause that's what they've been doing for decades. The two luxury brand billionares that is.

:thup: I saw that mentioned, I just haven't looked for anything that verifies it. If so then that's even worse, but not at all surprising.
Dead in the middle of Little Italy little did we know that we riddled some middle men who didn't do diddely.


{o,o}
|)__)
-“-“-

Offline Thomson Mouse

  • General Member
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18248 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 04:35:41 pm »
I'm sure they do, via their taxpayers. So do these very rich French people who want to contribute and, in doing so, remove the burden from the state. Which would you prefer?

For them to be fair taxpayers too and then we don't have to choose between burdening the state or relying on the rich to dole out money on a whim?

Can't say I know too much about the tax affairs of the donors but they're French so I assume they pay more than billionaires here do. What if they do pay all their tax, are they then allowed to do what they want with their money?

If I had a spare few billion pounds, I'd certainly be giving a canny bit away (what the f*** else would I do with it?) but I'd also be buying a football club located not too far away from me, frivolous money on a relative insignificance, money that I could have given to a worthy charity. If someone took a can of petrol to Durham Cathedral, I might even give them a few quid as it's my favourite building in the world (speaking as a rabid atheist). At what point would I be allowed to spend money on something I wanted to spend money on without criticism? :lol:

You’re making a lot of assumptions in the first part to justify your last sentence.

For me, there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with it, just I’d rather be spending money on helping people with immediate need (and a certain football club).
People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

Offline 54

  • NUFC54
  • General Member
  • Remember...
Re: Still not worthy of a thread - General Chat edition
« Reply #18249 on: Wednesday 17 April 2019, 06:22:20 pm »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47960874

US scientists have partially revived pig brains four hours after the animals were slaughtered.

The findings could fuel debate about the barrier between life and death, and provide a new way of researching diseases like Alzheimer's.

The study showed the death of brain cells could be halted and even restored some connections in the brain.

However, there were no signals from the brain that would indicate awareness or consciousness.

The surprise findings challenge the idea that the brain goes into irreversible decline within minutes of the blood supply being cut off.