Those who would whine about contributions to X instead of Y are making presumptions about contributions that they know nothing about.

For all anyone knows, some of those contributing to reconstruction already make other contributions to so-called humanitarian issues (many of which are the subject of organizations that are far too top-heavy in the use of funds, funneling to the administrators as opposed to where the money could actually do some good).

Further, it could also very well be a portion of funds they ALREADY give to their church(s) of choice since there are still some people out there (including those with money) who engage in tithing.

And lastly...its their money. Let them contribute it as they see fit. It makes little sense to make issues out of how people spend their funds, either via purchases or contributions.

Couldn't have said it better. No way it cost $ 1 billion to renovate too. They're just flexing their "support" for the world while the actual humans of the world get none.

The Notre Dame Cathedral is one of humanity's greatest works of art. Some people criticize public support of art, but I guess you guys think even private support of art is wrong. What a drab world that would be.

Isn't this "trickling down"?

Nope, this might actually work...

I would like to ask a favor of posters here and also those on Pitcairn Island.

Could you please tell me how much you think I agree or disagree with the above post. Some number between agree 100% to disagree 100%.

You’ll have to post on Pitcairn Island to get that answer.

Also there are more posters on that board than residents on actual Pitcairn Island.

about 3.50%

70%

5% because the bolded bit is a ludicrously strong statement of a highly unlikely fact.

100%

10%.lot of causes just as bad or worse than rebuilding Notre Dame

80%.Would be higher if it wasn't for the confidence in the bolded bit which is probably inaccurate

It isn't obscene, those people can do whatever they want with their money. However what they are doing is some pretty lame virtue signaling.

In the colloquial sense of this term, no, giving away 100s of millions is not an empty gesture of support for some cause. Or did you mean to use "virtue signaling" with its original academic meaning?

They want to be seen as being virtuous when they aren't, in fact virtuous.

IE They are trying to buy a needle with an eye big enough so they can get into heaven.

Imagine a doctor coming upon the scene of a horrible accident where dozens of people are in terrible shape and dozens of other people have broken legs. He was on the way to an important meeting that just might result in a vaccine that saves thousands of lives.

He starts attending to those in the most need and stabilizes many of them but there are still many more critical he has not helped. He is exhausted. If at that point he feels he can do no more it is understandable. It is also very understandable if he makes the decision to continue on to the meeting because the vaccine is apt not to come to fruition without him.

What wouldn't be understandable would be deciding after saving half of the most seriously wounded to move on to help those with the broken legs while offering the excuse "I llready donated plenty of time to the dying, broken legs need help too" or the excuse "It would be a pretty drab world if everyone had broken legs."

As the saying goes: It's easier for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel

I don't know what the original academic meaning is, but I meant they want to be viewed as doing a good deed. Although in this case there is value in the donations they are giving so its different than a purely empty gesture.

Can be for the kudos but people also seem to get a some feeling of immortality by their name/work continuing after their death. It's not a religious thing as much as an ego thing.

I'm going to discuss an interesting example of status-seeking behavior in my next playground thread. Be sure to tune in :P

wat.

just to indulge.. so in your world, its equally understandable to leave a bunch of people to pain and death to make a business meeting? is the world ending tomorrow without your vaccine? is this world war Z?

This is a bad analogy. Medical triage operates on a single continuum of value, whereas the value of art or cultural heritage vs human life is more subjective and can differ according to the values of different people.

Also, "understandable" is the wrong word here. It is quite understandable why people might do something that is irrational, given known facts about cognitive biases and human psychology.

Hmmm....

For some it's religious but non-believers do it as well.

You are not realizing that I am on your side. I am willing to agree that it might be ok to withold monetary assistance to the suffering but only if that money had a good chance to end even more suffering.

My understanding is that doctors are obligated to help people, I don't think they can be expected to know how to maximize that help or even to maximize it.

Rich people are under no obligation to do good with their money. They are certainly not obligated to do the most good with their money.

That's where you analogy falls apart. Maybe you need something more in line with the trolley problem?

i didnt know we were on sides, i just had no idea what you were getting at in your hypo. it seemed like stopping to help had zero downside in the hypo, since the reason for not helping was not in the least bit time sensitive.


and for the record my side is that billionaires can do whatever they want with their money, it just further justifies the point that the republican/conservative belief that philanthropy can replace increased wealth taxation to help less fortunate is a ridiculously dumb idea that has no real world standing.

it's not so much as obscene but expected that people will give large sums of money in self interest, whether it be to put one's name on a historical land mark, or to start a foundation for something that personally affected them or a family member.