Which My GNR Forum Member Would Make the Best World Leader?

[Len Cnut]

See what i mean?

[DieselDaisy]

Isn't that a required trait for all politics?

Nah, because I realize that it is all about balancing budgets and you don't have enough to go around for everything, including the most ostentatious displays of art.

Because you're just prevaricating, you were presented with a proposition i.e. architecture/the arts etc flourished under the auspices of religion...and you're that incapable of conceding and going 'y'know what, you got a point there' that you just go off on one about balancing budgets and how they were made by these organisations like the Catholic Church draining the resources from wherever, which is pretty disingenuous as an argument.

What? Did you not get form what I wrote that yes, without large theistic organizations we would not have those kinds of religious monuments?

Not only did I concur with that statement, I also argued that I prefer a world where we DON'T have any such powerful organizations that can squander immense resources on such buldings when they could be betterf spent elsewhere So not only did I agree with it, I also brought the discussion forward by adding a new aspect to it.

See what I said about the Catholic church. You do not see this level of abuse thrown at the indigenous religions of Australia. I sometimes feel atheists are, not so much atheistic but, anti-catholic.

What abuse?

Well you have said their buildings are 'ostentatious' for a start haha. You build a building as good as the Sistine Chapel.

[Len Cnut]

This sort of thing is why we will never have a global secular society, not ever because it would be the death of the individual cuz people take certain ideas and just run with them. I mean if you really consider what Soul is proposing here it would actually be quite scary, the absolute disregard for human expression in favour of pragmatism, why have a St Pauls Cathedral when you can build 5 blocks of council flats on the land and house 400 people, limiting how big familys you can have to control a populations.

I wonder what would happen under Souls fascist junta to people who wanted to hold onto their religious beliefs They'd probably have the symbol of their religion branded on their forehead and have to pass out devotional tracts through underground network in fear of the Soulie Brownshirts

Anything that preaches the global appropriating of one particular way across the board is fundamentally terrifying to me.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[SoulMonster]

This is a pretty bad argument for a secular society, that it can't feed and shelter its populus without essentially sacrificing culture. And if you seriously believe that the value of those monuments was solely to do with how ostentatious they were then you're really missing the point.

I don't think an argument for or against secularism should be based on how it supports culture And just because a secular ociety can't afford the most extravagant monument of arts doesn't mean it can't support art. And nowhere did I say that the value of those monument comes from how ostentatious they are.

See what I said about the Catholic church. You do not see this level of abuse thrown at the indigenous religions of Australia. I sometimes feel atheists are, not so much atheistic but, anti-catholic.

What abuse?

Well you have said their buildings are 'ostentatious' for a start haha. You build a building as good as the Sistine Chapel.

It's abusive to point out that some religious monuments are ostentatious?

[DieselDaisy]

Well a mere discussion with you will produce a plethora of the usual insults, 'fairy tales', 'unicorns'.

[magisme]

[SoulMonster]

I mean if you really consider what Soul is proposing here it would actually be quite scary, the absolute disregard for human expression in favour of pragmatism, why have a St Pauls Cathedral when you can build 5 blocks of council flats on the land and house 400 people, limiting how big familys you can have to control a populations.

Err, I have never said religions can't continue to build their churces and monuments as impressive and beautiful as they wish. What I have said it that in a conscientious society you can't allocate money into ostentatious displays of art if it means people will suffer as a consequence, because in contrast to religion, a democratic society is for the people and not for god. In addition, you make it sound like I am against art, I have ONLY been talking about the most resource-demanding monuments which would actually make a dent in any budget, not normal support of arts and culture.

I wonder what would happen under Souls fascist junta to people who wanted to hold onto their religious beliefs They'd probably have the symbol of their religion branded on their forehead and have to pass out devotional tracts through underground network in fear of the Soulie Brownshirts

Don't be a jerk. I have nothing against religious freedom and theists can spend their money anyway the like and create the most outrages buildings in the world for all I care. As a World Leader in charge of securing welfare, sustenance and sustainability for all, I couldn't.

Anything that preaches the global appropriating of one particular way across the board is fundamentally terrifying to me.

What?

Well a mere discussion with you will produce a plethora of the usual insults, 'fairy tales', 'unicorns'.

Please point out where I have insulted you in this thread (so I can make a note of it for future references).

Edited December 12, 2014 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

I don't think an argument for or against secularism should be based on how it supports culture

I do. I feel it should be key in fact.

And just because a secular ociety can't afford the most extravagant monument of arts doesn't mean it can't support art. And nowhere did I say that the value of those monument comes from how ostentatious they are.

Again, the fact that you cant see beyond the ostentatiousness and extravagance of said monuments illustrates your lack of understanding of their value.

It's abusive to point out that some religious monuments are ostentatious?

No but it is dismissive and a disservice when it is all your intellect can muster in appraisal of them. 'extravagant' and 'ostentatious' is how you describe a Vegas showgirls shiny skirt, not works of art.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[DieselDaisy]

Not me - religion.

[netcat]

I wonder what would happen under Souls fascist junta to people who wanted to hold onto their religious beliefs They'd probably have the symbol of their religion branded on their forehead and have to pass out devotional tracts through underground network in fear of the Soulie Brownshirts

that would be fair. religions oppressed atheists for centuries, so SM would only restore historical justice

[Len Cnut]

I wonder what would happen under Souls fascist junta to people who wanted to hold onto their religious beliefs They'd probably have the symbol of their religion branded on their forehead and have to pass out devotional tracts through underground network in fear of the Soulie Brownshirts

that would be fair. religions oppressed atheists for centuries, so SM would only restore historical justice

whatcha mean restore, when was there any in the first place?

[netcat]

yeah i mean more like get even

[Len Cnut]

yeah i mean more like get even

Which appears to the governing motivation of a great many atheists

[SoulMonster]

I don't think an argument for or against secularism should be based on how it supports culture

I do. I feel it should be key in fact.

And just because a secular ociety can't afford the most extravagant monument of arts doesn't mean it can't support art. And nowhere did I say that the value of those monument comes from how ostentatious they are.

Again, the fact that you cant see beyond the ostentatiousness and extravagance of said monuments illustrates your lack of understanding of their value.

It's abusive to point out that some religious monuments are ostentatious?

No but it is dismissive and a disservice when it is all your intellect can muster in appraisal of them. 'extravagant' and 'ostentatious' is how you describe a Vegas showgirls shiny skirt, not works of art.

Not understanding that culture is somewhat down on the list of what a population absolutely needs, and that you don't have enough resources to go around for everything and must prioritize welfare, helathcare, infrastructure, industry, education and research, is why YOU wouldn't be a good World Leader Again, not saying a society shouldn't sponsor the arts, just that we can't go all "Catholic Church" about it. We have responsibilities to the population, not only to god, so we have to be a bit more level-headed about it.

Again you are misunderstanding me if you think I only see, say, the Friday Mosque in Isfahan, as nothing but an ostentatious building. I understand the value that bulding has to both theists and secularists alike, I understand why it is valuable because I felt it myself when stepping into it. I will never forget the awe of walking there. I understand the value of arts to humans, I love arts myself. But that doesn't mean I can't use my head and realize that a conscientiouss society may not have the resources to support such buildings being built today.

I wasn't aware "ostentatious" was such an awful word and not suitable to be used on larger monuments that have been designed to impress. I thought it was pretty neutral. Let's mark this down on my limited English, okay?

Edited December 12, 2014 by SoulMonster

[Lio]

I've been following this debate closely. I am a catholic, but SoulMonster still has my vote.

[Len Cnut]

I don't think an argument for or against secularism should be based on how it supports culture

I do. I feel it should be key in fact.

And just because a secular ociety can't afford the most extravagant monument of arts doesn't mean it can't support art. And nowhere did I say that the value of those monument comes from how ostentatious they are.

Again, the fact that you cant see beyond the ostentatiousness and extravagance of said monuments illustrates your lack of understanding of their value.

It's abusive to point out that some religious monuments are ostentatious?

No but it is dismissive and a disservice when it is all your intellect can muster in appraisal of them. 'extravagant' and 'ostentatious' is how you describe a Vegas showgirls shiny skirt, not works of art.

Not understanding that culture is somewhat down on the list of what a population absolutely needs, and that you don't have enough resources to go around for everything and must prioritize welfare, helathcare, infrastructure, industry, education and research, is why YOU wouldn't be a good World Leader Again, not saying a society shouldn't sponsor the arts, just that we can't go all "Catholic Church" about it. We have responsibilities to the population, not only to god, so we have to be a bit more level-headed about it.

Again you are misunderstanding me if you think I only see, say, the Friday Mosque in Isfahan, as nothing but an ostentatious building. I understand the value that bulding has to both theists and secularists alike, I understand why it is valuable because I felt it myself when stepping into it. I will never forget the awe of walking there. I understand the value of arts to humans, I love arts myself. But that doesn't mean I can't use my head and realize that a conscientiouss society may not have the resources to support such buildings being built today.

I wasn't aware "ostentatious" was such an awful word and not suitable to be used on larger monuments that have been designed to impress. I thought it was pretty neutral. Let's mark this down on my limited English, okay?

Whats worrying here though is you labouring under the presumption that resources on this planet are so limited that there would ever be a need for a choice between art over feeding the populus, when there's nothing to suggest that, its just a line of thought you've appropriated as an unnecessary riposte to Dies' stating that art flourished under the auspices of religion.

In assessing the value all you could come up with is ostentatious and extravagant, if you mean more then say more. Its not an awful word its just dismissive and essentially relegates the value of 'x' if there is more to 'x'.

[netcat]

I've been following this debate closely. I am a catholic, but SoulMonster still has my vote.

does it have something to do with catholic guilt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_guilt

Jack Donaghy: That's not how it works, Tracy. Even though there is the whole confession thing, that's no free pass, because there is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt [Miming the act of self-flagellation].

Tracy Jordan: I don't think I want that. I'm out.

[Jack turns to leave]

Jack Donaghy: [to himself] Somehow, I feel oddly guilty about that.

[Lio]

I've been following this debate closely. I am a catholic, but SoulMonster still has my vote.

does it have something to do with catholic guilt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_guilt

Jack Donaghy: That's not how it works, Tracy. Even though there is the whole confession thing, that's no free pass, because there is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt [Miming the act of self-flagellation].

Tracy Jordan: I don't think I want that. I'm out.

[Jack turns to leave]

Jack Donaghy: [to himself] Somehow, I feel oddly guilty about that.

Probably. I suffer from that quite a lot.

[netcat]

I've been following this debate closely. I am a catholic, but SoulMonster still has my vote.

does it have something to do with catholic guilt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_guilt

Jack Donaghy: That's not how it works, Tracy. Even though there is the whole confession thing, that's no free pass, because there is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt [Miming the act of self-flagellation].

Tracy Jordan: I don't think I want that. I'm out.

[Jack turns to leave]

Jack Donaghy: [to himself] Somehow, I feel oddly guilty about that.

Probably. I suffer from that quite a lot.

with your current Pope, who apologizes for every sneeze, i'm not surprised

[SoulMonster]

I don't think an argument for or against secularism should be based on how it supports culture

I do. I feel it should be key in fact.

And just because a secular ociety can't afford the most extravagant monument of arts doesn't mean it can't support art. And nowhere did I say that the value of those monument comes from how ostentatious they are.

Again, the fact that you cant see beyond the ostentatiousness and extravagance of said monuments illustrates your lack of understanding of their value.

It's abusive to point out that some religious monuments are ostentatious?

No but it is dismissive and a disservice when it is all your intellect can muster in appraisal of them. 'extravagant' and 'ostentatious' is how you describe a Vegas showgirls shiny skirt, not works of art.

Not understanding that culture is somewhat down on the list of what a population absolutely needs, and that you don't have enough resources to go around for everything and must prioritize welfare, helathcare, infrastructure, industry, education and research, is why YOU wouldn't be a good World Leader Again, not saying a society shouldn't sponsor the arts, just that we can't go all "Catholic Church" about it. We have responsibilities to the population, not only to god, so we have to be a bit more level-headed about it.

Again you are misunderstanding me if you think I only see, say, the Friday Mosque in Isfahan, as nothing but an ostentatious building. I understand the value that bulding has to both theists and secularists alike, I understand why it is valuable because I felt it myself when stepping into it. I will never forget the awe of walking there. I understand the value of arts to humans, I love arts myself. But that doesn't mean I can't use my head and realize that a conscientiouss society may not have the resources to support such buildings being built today.

I wasn't aware "ostentatious" was such an awful word and not suitable to be used on larger monuments that have been designed to impress. I thought it was pretty neutral. Let's mark this down on my limited English, okay?

Whats worrying here though is you labouring under the presumption that resources on this planet are so limited that there would ever be a need for a choice between art over feeding the populus, when there's nothing to suggest that, its just a line of thought you've appropriated as an unnecessary riposte to Dies' stating that art flourished under the auspices of religion.

In assessing the value all you could come up with is ostentatious and extravagant, if you mean more then say more. Its not an awful word its just dismissive and essentially relegates the value of 'x' if there is more to 'x'.

What IS worrying here is that you don't understand that with me as a World Leader it wouldn't be a choice between art or food, as you present it, but basically a continuation of every modern society's prioritices which is to still support the arts but to NOT build the most ridiculously resource-draiming monuments to the glory of gods. In other words, I would do more or less the same as most societies do today regarding arts, just not what some religions have done in medieval times when they channeled huge amount of resources into building some monuments rather than securing a minimum of benefits for the population.

I was never "assessing the value" of anything, I was just offhand pointing out what should be a trivial thing: that most modern societies can't prioritize such expensive monuments being built today if they don't serve any other use than having an artistic value, if they don't have enough money to make sure all people have the bare necessities

[Len Cnut]

So you're saying that you cant concieve of a world where the two things (meaning a good standard of living as well as grand artistic monuments) can exist together comfortably? Well then what you are proposing is a load of shit then, isn't it? Thats hardly a masterstroke is it, you're basically sacrificing one for the other, thats not a solution to the problem. I mean all the amazingly expensive buildings that go up nowadays and you're saying there's a resources problem? Its just you prevaricating basically. Whats being suggested here is that the reason architecture post-the olden days of religion is shit because that money is being used to feed and clothe and house the poor, is that supposed to be a joke?

So, you agree you were being offhand in your comments towards it and you think its trivial, well there you, thats your assessment of its value.

In your first paragraph you say it wouldnt be a choice between the two...oh but except... Spoken like a true politician

Edited December 12, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[SoulMonster]

So you're saying that you cant concieve of a world where the two things (meaning a good standard of living as well as grand artistic monuments) can exist together comfortably? Well then what you are proposing is a load of shit then, isn't it? Thats hardly a masterstroke is it, you're basically sacrificing one for the other, thats not a solution to the problem. I mean all the amazingly expensive buildings that go up nowadays and you're saying there's a resources problem? Its just you prevaricating basically. Whats being suggested here is that the reason architecture post-the olden days of religion is shit because that money is being used to feed and clothe and house the poor, is that supposed to be a joke?

So, you agree you were being offhand in your comments towards it and you think its trivial, well there you, thats your assessment of its value.

In your first paragraph you say it wouldnt be a choice between the two...oh but except... Spoken like a true politician

No, I am not saying I can't "conceive of a world where a good standard of living can be combined with grand artistic monuments". I am saying that in those cases where we can't afford both, those grand artistic monuments that serve no other purpose than being great works of art and costs proportionally as much as the greatest examples of religious buildings and monuments from mediaval times, would have to be down-prioritized.

I don't know about "masterstroke", but if my policies as World Leader worked out as planned, and it resulted in the end of pollution, climate change, mass exctinction of other life forms, basically a more sustainable existence, combined with guaranteed education for everybody, less poverty, and advancement in science and especially medicine so that many of the diseases that lague humanity would cease to be, then I think that would be a good thing. And if people would be clamouring for those monumental works of art, I suppose we would be in a position to afford them, too. But again, that is pretty low of my list of priorities. Sorry!

I don't share your opinion that contemporary architecture is shit. Far from it. I enjoy lots of things that have been built without there being any religiousity to it, like many modern high buildings, bridges, opera houses, etc.

Are you obtuse on purpose? I said it wouldn't be a choice between art and food, right, but it could be a choice between food and those most expensive examples of monumental art that is simple cost-prohibitive. You do realize that art comes in more shapes and sizes than the most ostentatious buildings, churces and monuments we have been talking about earlier? You have music, fashion. literature, paintings, sculpture, etc. As I have said many times before and will repeat now: I have nothing against how this is handled in a sober way by most modern societies; what you seem to repeatdly fail to understand, though, is that the crazy spending of money as exemplified by the Catholic Church in mediavel times on some of their monuments, could never have been approved in modern democratic societies that have other priorities on their top list.

[DieselDaisy]

You speak some bollocks.

[SoulMonster]

You speak some bollocks.

Oh? Let's break down what I just wrote in a few bullet points and you can amuse us by pointing out which are bollocks:

* I can conceive of a hypothetical society where we wouldn't have to prioritize what to fund.

* In most modern socities this is not to case, and we aren't able to spend as much money on the arts as we would like.

* Stopping the expected results of human overpopulation is a good thing.

* Not all contemporary architecture is shit.

* There is a difference between having to choose between 'food and art', and having to choose between 'food and some very expensive forms of art'.

[liers]

Me. I would destroy half the world, then turn the rest into an almost complete anarchy and make My World the national anthem.