Massive Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris

[Nea Byzantia]

A Bishop, maybe...But a certain President of France, eager to distract his People from the mass anarchy in Paris, and make himself look good (by perhaps rebuilding the Notre Dame); that I could totally see making sense. Makes too much sense, actually.

It literally doesn't, but ok I guess.

Are you also a "Bush did 9/11" kinda guy?

No.

But why did this happen now? How is it this hasn't happened for the last millennium of Notre Dame's existence; when they literally used candles and oil lamps to light things? What are the chances that this is all mere coincidence?

[Fartsniffage]

It literally doesn't, but ok I guess.

Are you also a "Bush did 9/11" kinda guy?

No.

But why did this happen now? How is it this hasn't happened for the last millennium of Notre Dame's existence; when they literally used candles and oil lamps to light things? What are the chances that this is all mere coincidence?

There were people renovating the roof.

[Andsed]

It literally doesn't, but ok I guess.

Are you also a "Bush did 9/11" kinda guy?

No.

But why did this happen now? How is it this hasn't happened for the last millennium of Notre Dame's existence; when they literally used candles and oil lamps to light things? What are the chances that this is all mere coincidence?

Pretty good TBH. The building is quite old and there was renovation work being done on it. Not everything is some kind of plot you know.

[Baoshing]

Before you flush it down the toilet, it does actually sound like what the actual average Catholic bishop would do. Apart from raping children.

It's just sounds.....weird for a bishop to burn his own cathedral.

Why?-Catholic clergymen rape children on a daily basis, it were the Catholics that invented the sale of indulgences, it were Catholics that invented the Spanish Inquisition, it were the Catholics that invented monogamy. And amongst all of those, a Catholic bishop setting fire to his own church seems weird to you?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

So are we arguing pedantics instead of actually explaining how not fixing things because were going to die is in any way a sensible or practical idea?

Again, because thinking we should repair and fix things somehow translates into wanting robots to replace humanity. I am utterly dumbfounded on your logical process right now.

Well, you brought efficiency into it, including financial aspects, and making remarks that sounded very economic-centred.
Efficiency: You mentioned it to to be 'inefficient' to not fixing things, thus bringing efficiency into it, too.
If you wish for something to be 100%-ly efficient, it would be machines, thus-as you made it seem-you are into efficiency, thus you want to replace humans with robots.

Humans can't be efficient because they have emotions.

Not-fixing things is good; Nature always wins and will eventually re-capture the entire planet from humanity; humans have destroyed much of what once was a wonderful paradise, therefore humanity will be eradicated by nature. Then this planet will not be harmed anymore and can finally rest.
We humans should accept our role on this planet and not act like gods, always trying to fight against everything. Repairing things means to be fighting against the inevitable. Fighting the inevitable is fighting against nature ; the only one profiting from repairing things is the one who sells you the means to do so: the average capitalist. [Capitalism means exploitation.] Thus it is typical reactionary, bourgeois behavior seeking to repair things; Capitalist exploitation did so much harm to this beautiful planet already; it is not tolerable to harm this paradise we live in. Accepting your own mortality is an act of both, self-love and selflessness, which is [needs] to be achieved in order to eliminate the evil within [you]. Having accomplished that act means to be in absolute balance with nature. Which is really thing we both can get behind, I hope.

Or, I just think that leaving buildings half burned or ruined and doing nothing about it is pointless and unnecessary, especially when it is still an active building and in use, as well as being a culturally and historically significant building as in this case. That does not mean I am suddenly obsessed and only jump to extremes, that is you making that argument for me, which I never made.

Basically your argument is that repairing things is harmful to the environment then and thus it should be avoided so that nature can reclaim it. Except under your proposed system, there would actually be more damage done to the environment as people would simply have to build things from scratch instead of fixing them and continuing to use them. This would require far more resources from the environment as well as more space, because like it or not, humans need shelter and buildings to provide things for them. Instead of just fixing and continuing to use one thing, we would now have to just build an entirely new structure to replace it in another area and thus further intrude on the environment and use more resources from it to replace the structure that now won't be repaired. Your system is based entirely on unrealistic ideals and impracticality, and thus really isn't possible to do, in addition to being detrimental to the purpose you are trying to serve.

[Neutraligon]

It literally doesn't, but ok I guess.

Are you also a "Bush did 9/11" kinda guy?

No.

But why did this happen now? How is it this hasn't happened for the last millennium of Notre Dame's existence; when they literally used candles and oil lamps to light things? What are the chances that this is all mere coincidence?

Unlikely...you are aware they where attempting to restore the cathedral right? You are aware that hot tools are used during that time right? It is during the restoration work that the roof was in the most danger.

[Fartsniffage]

Apparently they salvaged a small case. Inside they found sandwiches and a bag of crisps. They found the lunchpack of Notre Dame.

[Ifreann]

Apparently they salvaged a small case. Inside they found sandwiches and a bag of crisps. They found the lunchpack of Notre Dame.

Love it.

[Andsed]

No.

But why did this happen now? How is it this hasn't happened for the last millennium of Notre Dame's existence; when they literally used candles and oil lamps to light things? What are the chances that this is all mere coincidence?

Pretty good TBH. The building is quite old and there was renovation work being done on it. Not everything is some kind of plot you know.

Also adding on my post here. What real proof do we have that this is deliberate? Sure it may be good timing for some groups but that does not mean anything on it´s own.

[Baoshing]

It's just sounds.....weird for a bishop to burn his own cathedral.

A Bishop, maybe...But a certain President of France, eager to distract his People from the mass anarchy in Paris, and make himself look good (by perhaps rebuilding the Notre Dame); that I could totally see making sense. Makes too much sense, actually.

It does, indeed, make too much sense.

[Zizou]

It's just sounds.....weird for a bishop to burn his own cathedral.

A Bishop, maybe...But a certain President of France, eager to distract his People from the mass anarchy in Paris, and make himself look good (by perhaps rebuilding the Notre Dame); that I could totally see making sense. Makes too much sense, actually.

Not really. There are massive amounts of history contained within that cathedral and it doesn't make sense for the government to destroy it. Plus, even if Macaron didn't care about history, it'll cost somewhere in the realm of $8 billion to rebuild, and the French government isn't going to be happily giving out the money hand over fist. This will force the government to either foot an expensive bill for the restoration of the cathedral, or risk people becoming even more disillusioned with the government than they were to begin with. Plus, that's a horrible idea to begin with, because this will only occupy the minds of the people for, at most, a year or two. The "distraction" wouldn't even be close to permanent.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Pretty good TBH. The building is quite old and there was renovation work being done on it. Not everything is some kind of plot you know.

Also adding on my post here. What real proof do we have that this is deliberate? Sure it may be good timing for some groups but that does not mean anything on it´s own.

It is all just conjecture based entirely on coincidence, as are most out there conspiracy theories. I really don't give any of them the time of day.

[Neutraligon]

A Bishop, maybe...But a certain President of France, eager to distract his People from the mass anarchy in Paris, and make himself look good (by perhaps rebuilding the Notre Dame); that I could totally see making sense. Makes too much sense, actually.

It does, indeed, make too much sense.

Or, or it could just be result of the fact that they where attempting to restore things, so you know hot tools and the such in all that old dry wood.

[Andsed]

A Bishop, maybe...But a certain President of France, eager to distract his People from the mass anarchy in Paris, and make himself look good (by perhaps rebuilding the Notre Dame); that I could totally see making sense. Makes too much sense, actually.

It does, indeed, make too much sense.

Not really. Sure it is not impossible and it may be good timing for Macron but aside from that we have jack shit backing that conspiracy theory up. An accident is much more likely than some plot by Macron.

[Samudera Darussalam]

It's just sounds.....weird for a bishop to burn his own cathedral.

Why?-Catholic clergymen rape children on a daily basis, it were the Catholics that invented the sale of indulgences, it were Catholics that invented the Spanish Inquisition, it were the Catholics that invented monogamy. And amongst all of those, a Catholic bishop setting fire to his own church seems weird to you?

........Well, it's not all clergymen, right? The acts of some don't define the rest of them. If anything, the one Nea Byzantia said is making more sense.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

It does, indeed, make too much sense.

Or, or it could just be result of the fact that they where attempting to restore things, so you know hot tools and the such in all that old dry wood.

That is exactly what the state whats you to think you silly sheep. A perfectly logical and sensible explanation is of course only the cover story, and never the perfectly logical and sensible explanation.

[Ethel mermania]

Pfft, jesus said. L'etat cest Moi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn1BKuGSFNY

Amazing how you people can be bilingual.

[Baoshing]

Well, you brought efficiency into it, including financial aspects, and making remarks that sounded very economic-centred.
Efficiency: You mentioned it to to be 'inefficient' to not fixing things, thus bringing efficiency into it, too.
If you wish for something to be 100%-ly efficient, it would be machines, thus-as you made it seem-you are into efficiency, thus you want to replace humans with robots.

Humans can't be efficient because they have emotions.

Not-fixing things is good; Nature always wins and will eventually re-capture the entire planet from humanity; humans have destroyed much of what once was a wonderful paradise, therefore humanity will be eradicated by nature. Then this planet will not be harmed anymore and can finally rest.
We humans should accept our role on this planet and not act like gods, always trying to fight against everything. Repairing things means to be fighting against the inevitable. Fighting the inevitable is fighting against nature ; the only one profiting from repairing things is the one who sells you the means to do so: the average capitalist. [Capitalism means exploitation.] Thus it is typical reactionary, bourgeois behavior seeking to repair things; Capitalist exploitation did so much harm to this beautiful planet already; it is not tolerable to harm this paradise we live in. Accepting your own mortality is an act of both, self-love and selflessness, which is [needs] to be achieved in order to eliminate the evil within [you]. Having accomplished that act means to be in absolute balance with nature. Which is really thing we both can get behind, I hope.

Or, I just think that leaving buildings half burned or ruined and doing nothing about it is pointless and unnecessary, especially when it is still an active building and in use, as well as being a culturally and historically significant building as in this case. That does not mean I am suddenly obsessed and only jump to extremes, that is you making that argument for me, which I never made.

Basically your argument is that repairing things is harmful to the environment then and thus it should be avoided so that nature can reclaim it. Except under your proposed system, there would actually be more damage done to the environment as people would simply have to build things from scratch instead of fixing them and continuing to use them. This would require far more resources from the environment as well as more space, because like it or not, humans need shelter and buildings to provide things for them. Instead of just fixing and continuing to use one thing, we would now have to just build an entirely new structure to replace it in another area and thus further intrude on the environment and use more resources from it to replace the structure that now won't be repaired. Your system is based entirely on unrealistic ideals and impracticality, and thus really isn't possible to do, in addition to being detrimental to the purpose you are trying to serve.

Typical reactionary, bourgeois thinking. Your second paragraph is wholly build on the logical fallacy that things either need to be fixed or replaced. Maybe I was a bit foggy there, but when saying 'no repairing' it included 'no replacing'. Replacing and repairing are both harming the planet, thus let go off it.

[Skylus]

Is there some sort of list that lists what was rescued from the church and what survived the fire yet?

Also post 1300 yay

[Grimmsland]

Uh, looks like today is not a good day for Muslims either https://www.newsweek.com/notre-dame-fir ... ue-1397259
Al Aqsa mosque also caught fire. Given earlier conversation this is a little...wow.

was there was a religious slaughtering of a lamb going on in Israel at this same time? is their messiah about to arrive.. or arrived? *ponders*

[Nea Byzantia]

Uh, looks like today is not a good day for Muslims either https://www.newsweek.com/notre-dame-fir ... ue-1397259
Al Aqsa mosque also caught fire. Given earlier conversation this is a little...wow.

was there was a religious slaughtering of a lamb going on in Israel at this same time? is their messiah about to arrive.. or arrived? *ponders*

He came already, and they murdered Him.

[Kowani]

was there was a religious slaughtering of a lamb going on in Israel at this same time? is their messiah about to arrive.. or arrived? *ponders*

He came already, and they murdered Him.

Not murder, it was done legally.
Additionally, they don’t believe they murdered him.

[Leskya]

was there was a religious slaughtering of a lamb going on in Israel at this same time? is their messiah about to arrive.. or arrived? *ponders*

He came already, and they murdered Him.

That's some nice anti-Semitism there bro.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Or, I just think that leaving buildings half burned or ruined and doing nothing about it is pointless and unnecessary, especially when it is still an active building and in use, as well as being a culturally and historically significant building as in this case. That does not mean I am suddenly obsessed and only jump to extremes, that is you making that argument for me, which I never made.

Basically your argument is that repairing things is harmful to the environment then and thus it should be avoided so that nature can reclaim it. Except under your proposed system, there would actually be more damage done to the environment as people would simply have to build things from scratch instead of fixing them and continuing to use them. This would require far more resources from the environment as well as more space, because like it or not, humans need shelter and buildings to provide things for them. Instead of just fixing and continuing to use one thing, we would now have to just build an entirely new structure to replace it in another area and thus further intrude on the environment and use more resources from it to replace the structure that now won't be repaired. Your system is based entirely on unrealistic ideals and impracticality, and thus really isn't possible to do, in addition to being detrimental to the purpose you are trying to serve.

Typical reactionary, bourgeois thinking. Your second paragraph is wholly build on the logical fallacy that things either need to be fixed or replaced. Maybe I was a bit foggy there, but when saying 'no repairing' it included 'no replacing'. Replacing and repairing are both harming the planet, thus let go off it.

...yeah good luck telling billions of people that they can't fix their homes in any way, or even rebuild their lives in the wake of natural disasters and are going to be forced to be homeless and make do for the rest of their lives. That wont cause any problems whatsoever, and is of course a practical and logical policy that is in totally realistic to implement. It is not a fallacy to say that if things are broke, we tend to want to fix them. If anything, you are entirely fallacious in thinking what you are advocating is sustainable or practical.

Pretty sure needing a home and shelter transcends ideological leanings.

[Nea Byzantia]

He came already, and they murdered Him.

Not murder, it was done legally.
Additionally, they don’t believe they murdered him.

Fine, they executed Him, and whether or not they believe they did it, doesn't change the fact that it happened.