RIP Notre Dame

[Perileos 143]

:pepe:

 

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[nopeAZU 133]

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[Ryzen51600 11]

I really dont care about some building in baguette

[xVirtual 2]

:pepe:

 

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

 

Indeed. We've lost some artifacts that would be sold over 1M$ each, just in paintings.

 

Notre Dame is going to be repaired, but not the Artifacts,

 

:(

:pepe:

[Perileos 143]

:pepe:

 

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

 

Indeed. We've lost some artifacts that would be sold over 1M$ each, just in paintings.

 

Notre Dame is going to be repaired, but not the Artifacts,

 

:(

:pepe:

 

The value of an artifact isn't measured by money. If you do so you don't appreciate them anyway.  :fuck:

[Ethan 145]

it is just a church

 

why is everybody so worked up?

[Ace 9]

it is just a church

 

why is everybody so worked up?

 

Literally. You check the news and people are "devastated" "heart broken". Meanwhile 50 people die in their house of worship and its "condolonces and prayers".

[Ethan 145]

it is just a church

 

why is everybody so worked up?

 

Literally. You check the news and people are "devastated" "heart broken". Meanwhile 50 people die in their house of worship and its "condolonces and prayers".

 

The worst part of it is that you have billionaires pledging millions to a fucking building instead of poor people who need it the most.

[xVirtual 2]

:pepe:

 

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

 

Indeed. We've lost some artifacts that would be sold over 1M$ each, just in paintings.

 

Notre Dame is going to be repaired, but not the Artifacts,

 

:(

:pepe:

 

The value of an artifact isn't measured by money. If you do so you don't appreciate them anyway.  :fuck: I did,  very much

[Perileos 143]

it is just a church

 

why is everybody so worked up?

 

Literally. You check the news and people are "devastated" "heart broken". Meanwhile 50 people die in their house of worship and its "condolonces and prayers".

 

The worst part of it is that you have billionaires pledging millions to a fucking building instead of poor people who need it the most.

 

I hate this statement. It's so superficial. 

 

Let's take Haiti as example, the earthquake in 2010 about 100K to 160K people died from it, many were left homeless. At least one billion dollars were donated, from all the corners over the planet. As of now, Haiti is still a shithole, not being rebuilt and reconstructed because the government of Haiti is full of a bunch of idiots. Same goes for majority of African/Third world countries, the government is full with idiots and easily 90% if not 95% goes to the government and we end up paying for their Ferrari's and their mansions. 

 

Now these donations to these shithole countries are mainly from government organisations and religious organisations. Meaning they do not come from one person. The majority of the donations towards the Notre Dame came from a couple billionaires, tell me, who are you to say where they need to send their money to? You don't maintain their wealthy, their money or their ideas and thoughts. Let alone that these billionaires are French and everyone would prefer to help their own country instead of some unstable country with greedy politicians. 

 

There's a reason third world countries stay third world countries. We provide many humanitarian aid, we provide disaster relief, we provide money, food and technology. But they do not work if there's not a government that has an interest in their own country. 

 

Stop saying this stupid statement because it's really superficial. I see it all over social media and it pisses me off more than it actually should.

[Ethan 145]

 

Literally. You check the news and people are "devastated" "heart broken". Meanwhile 50 people die in their house of worship and its "condolonces and prayers".

 

The worst part of it is that you have billionaires pledging millions to a fucking building instead of poor people who need it the most.

 

I hate this statement. It's so superficial. 

 

Let's take Haiti as example, the earthquake in 2010 about 100K to 160K people died from it, many were left homeless. At least one billion dollars were donated, from all the corners over the planet. As of now, Haiti is still a shithole, not being rebuilt and reconstructed because the government of Haiti is full of a bunch of idiots. Same goes for majority of African/Third world countries, the government is full with idiots and easily 90% if not 95% goes to the government and we end up paying for their Ferrari's and their mansions. 

 

Now these donations to these shithole countries are mainly from government organisations and religious organisations. Meaning they do not come from one person. The majority of the donations towards the Notre Dame came from a couple billionaires, tell me, who are you to say where they need to send their money to? You don't maintain their wealthy, their money or their ideas and thoughts. Let alone that these billionaires are French and everyone would prefer to help their own country instead of some unstable country with greedy politicians. 

 

There's a reason third world countries stay third world countries. We provide many humanitarian aid, we provide disaster relief, we provide money, food and technology. But they do not work if there's not a government that has an interest in their own country. 

 

Stop saying this stupid statement because it's really superficial. I see it all over social media and it pisses me off more than it actually should.

 

Either way, the government won't support these impoverished people but it's still annoying to see these very rich people suddenly emerge to donate to a building that has some fire damage.

The point of the message is; Why are they trying to look good by donating to the church, we as we all know, is already fucking rich when they could be donating to people who genuinely need the money.

If you're going to look good by donating a lump sum of money then put the money in the right place if you have the ability to do so.

By donating to these poor people directly means that it doesn't actually go through the government and not much corruption can occur.

 

I'm not a socialist type of person myself because I'm not poor but I don't agree with their donation choice, that's all.

[FireZilla 4]

 

A wise man once said , Sharing is caring. ( No offense to the french, i mean you did burn your own city down last year for footbal , But this is taking it to a whole new level! )

 

:kek: :kappa:  Sorry for being

[weco 6]

Really sad, saw it live on TV

[Perileos 143]

 

The worst part of it is that you have billionaires pledging millions to a fucking building instead of poor people who need it the most.

 

I hate this statement. It's so superficial. 

 

Let's take Haiti as example, the earthquake in 2010 about 100K to 160K people died from it, many were left homeless. At least one billion dollars were donated, from all the corners over the planet. As of now, Haiti is still a shithole, not being rebuilt and reconstructed because the government of Haiti is full of a bunch of idiots. Same goes for majority of African/Third world countries, the government is full with idiots and easily 90% if not 95% goes to the government and we end up paying for their Ferrari's and their mansions. 

 

Now these donations to these shithole countries are mainly from government organisations and religious organisations. Meaning they do not come from one person. The majority of the donations towards the Notre Dame came from a couple billionaires, tell me, who are you to say where they need to send their money to? You don't maintain their wealthy, their money or their ideas and thoughts. Let alone that these billionaires are French and everyone would prefer to help their own country instead of some unstable country with greedy politicians. 

 

There's a reason third world countries stay third world countries. We provide many humanitarian aid, we provide disaster relief, we provide money, food and technology. But they do not work if there's not a government that has an interest in their own country. 

 

Stop saying this stupid statement because it's really superficial. I see it all over social media and it pisses me off more than it actually should.

 

Either way, the government won't support these impoverished people but it's still annoying to see these very rich people suddenly emerge to donate to a building that has some fire damage.

The point of the message is; Why are they trying to look good by donating to the church, we as we all know, is already fucking rich when they could be donating to people who genuinely need the money.

If you're going to look good by donating a lump sum of money then put the money in the right place if you have the ability to do so.

By donating to these poor people directly means that it doesn't actually go through the government and not much corruption can occur.

 

I'm not a socialist type of person myself because I'm not poor but I don't agree with their donation choice, that's all.

 

Still very superficial. 

 

These billionaires worked their asses off to gain that money, if they decide to donate to a historical landmark (not necessarily a church) that represents their country, bringing in a lot of tourist revenue as well. Then it's up to them. No they don't care about the church, about children in some shithole in Africa. They care about their country. 

 

Besides how would one go to donate money directly to anyone in Africa? Majority doesn't have a bank account, meaning you have to distribute cash, which is a logistical nightmare. Not even taking in consideration of constant war, constant conflicts, constant rebels and what not. 

 

I'm a strong believer that any man can shape their own future. If you stay poor, then you're okay with being poor. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their own well being.

[Ethan 145]

 

I hate this statement. It's so superficial. 

 

Let's take Haiti as example, the earthquake in 2010 about 100K to 160K people died from it, many were left homeless. At least one billion dollars were donated, from all the corners over the planet. As of now, Haiti is still a shithole, not being rebuilt and reconstructed because the government of Haiti is full of a bunch of idiots. Same goes for majority of African/Third world countries, the government is full with idiots and easily 90% if not 95% goes to the government and we end up paying for their Ferrari's and their mansions. 

 

Now these donations to these shithole countries are mainly from government organisations and religious organisations. Meaning they do not come from one person. The majority of the donations towards the Notre Dame came from a couple billionaires, tell me, who are you to say where they need to send their money to? You don't maintain their wealthy, their money or their ideas and thoughts. Let alone that these billionaires are French and everyone would prefer to help their own country instead of some unstable country with greedy politicians. 

 

There's a reason third world countries stay third world countries. We provide many humanitarian aid, we provide disaster relief, we provide money, food and technology. But they do not work if there's not a government that has an interest in their own country. 

 

Stop saying this stupid statement because it's really superficial. I see it all over social media and it pisses me off more than it actually should.

 

Either way, the government won't support these impoverished people but it's still annoying to see these very rich people suddenly emerge to donate to a building that has some fire damage.

The point of the message is; Why are they trying to look good by donating to the church, we as we all know, is already fucking rich when they could be donating to people who genuinely need the money.

If you're going to look good by donating a lump sum of money then put the money in the right place if you have the ability to do so.

By donating to these poor people directly means that it doesn't actually go through the government and not much corruption can occur.

 

I'm not a socialist type of person myself because I'm not poor but I don't agree with their donation choice, that's all.

 

Still very superficial. 

 

These billionaires worked their asses off to gain that money, if they decide to donate to a historical landmark (not necessarily a church) that represents their country, bringing in a lot of tourist revenue as well. Then it's up to them. No they don't care about the church, about children in some shithole in Africa. They care about their country. 

 

Besides how would one go to donate money directly to anyone in Africa? Majority doesn't have a bank account, meaning you have to distribute cash, which is a logistical nightmare. Not even taking in consideration of constant war, constant conflicts, constant rebels and what not. 

 

I'm a strong believer that any man can shape their own future. If you stay poor, then you're okay with being poor. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their own well being.

 

But we're not talking about Africa? I also bet that the majority of those billionaires inherit the money from their family and If they truly cared about their country they'd donate to the people inside it.

I agree that people are able to shape their own future with little effort and determination but regardless they should have a helping start at minimum, a kick start if you like.

If these poor people continue to plague countries like France and ruin it, Then the wealthy people within France need fix that by either kicking all of the poor people out or helping them out by donating a tiny amount of money.

An I think we both know that the first option isn't valid.

In fact, for most company holders it's an investment as it's good and genuine publicity and will likely produce future clientele for that business.

[Perileos 143]

 

Either way, the government won't support these impoverished people but it's still annoying to see these very rich people suddenly emerge to donate to a building that has some fire damage.

The point of the message is; Why are they trying to look good by donating to the church, we as we all know, is already fucking rich when they could be donating to people who genuinely need the money.

If you're going to look good by donating a lump sum of money then put the money in the right place if you have the ability to do so.

By donating to these poor people directly means that it doesn't actually go through the government and not much corruption can occur.

 

I'm not a socialist type of person myself because I'm not poor but I don't agree with their donation choice, that's all.

 

Still very superficial. 

 

These billionaires worked their asses off to gain that money, if they decide to donate to a historical landmark (not necessarily a church) that represents their country, bringing in a lot of tourist revenue as well. Then it's up to them. No they don't care about the church, about children in some shithole in Africa. They care about their country. 

 

Besides how would one go to donate money directly to anyone in Africa? Majority doesn't have a bank account, meaning you have to distribute cash, which is a logistical nightmare. Not even taking in consideration of constant war, constant conflicts, constant rebels and what not. 

 

I'm a strong believer that any man can shape their own future. If you stay poor, then you're okay with being poor. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their own well being.

 

But we're not talking about Africa? I also bet that the majority of those billionaires inherit the money from their family and If they truly cared about their country they'd donate to the people inside it.

I agree that people are able to shape their own future with little effort and determination but regardless they should have a helping start at minimum, a kick start if you like.

If these poor people continue to plague countries like France and ruin it, Then the wealthy people within France need fix that by either kicking all of the poor people out or helping them out by donating a tiny amount of money.

An I think we both know that the first option isn't valid.

In fact, for most company holders it's an investment as it's good and genuine publicity and will likely produce future clientele for that business.

 

Why is it someone else's responsibility to take care of others they don't know? Why are you giving these billionaires the responsibility to take care of people who couldn't take care of themselves?

 

All western countries except the USA have some sort of homeless, social protection or prevention program. In France it's called "Protection Sociale", if you're so keen on protecting the poor perhaps read up on it. Your kickstart you get from working, if you can't work, you get protection sociale to provide you with the bare necessities. If they still remain poor, isn't the government to blame (or the people themselves?) as the government is responsible over their own citizens instead of the billionaires you try to blame. 

 

Tell me the investment you see in donating a sum of money to a historical landmark besides helping your country restore it's pride? Sure publicity will work, but I don't hear you complain about the Gates Foundation (they have over $50 billion of assets). 

 

But whatever, in the end it's the choice of the person who owns that money to choose where he wants to donate it to. 

 

Personally I wouldn't donate $100 million to poor people because I know they did that to themselves. 

 

Besides it doesn't matter where their wealth came from because they surely try to make the most of it. Seen in François-Henri Pinault who donated $116 million towards the rebuilding of the cathedral. Read his biography. Same goes for Bernard Arnault who also worked his entire life. Companies don't appear from thin air, they're built by someone and if it's family, then you can thank your dad for it.