DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**CelexaNY** · 10-15-2009, 08:50 PM

You really go way off track with these ridiculous, over the top analogies.

How about this. If God made a crappy hammer, it would still be worthless to me.

This should be right up your alley...So if they find a hammer that some guy Noah used to build a boat, it's no different than the claw-head I bought at the hardware store? Hell, probably worth less; mine has those non-slip ridges. If that hammer were as old as what should be Noah's age, then the two should be of comparable historical significance. Except you forget that there is no real proof of Noah, so a comparison like this, in which an item could prove a religious belief is a little unfair, as the item would hold additional worth compared to its intrinsic value.

Would I think it would be worth $150M? HELL no, pun intended.

What's being recognized is someone who would be on any list of the most influential people in human history. The $150 million tag is meaningless. Peter Paul Biro got it right: "I would say it is priceless."[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't. I Just because Jefferson was a founding father does not make his stools any more important than the next guy. The problem we are having is instilling too much value on a name. So if it turns out that Leonardo did not paint this, but merely touched it while it was wet, would it still be worth more?

The sad thing is that we lose track of what is truly important about an item sometimes. Its historical context is a valuable thing, but not to this magnitude. If everything in this world were valuable just because it was old, we would not be able to function very well, now would we?

If you want to pay $150M for a "priceless" painting that even Leonardo did not think was good enough to put his name on, then go ahead, but when we make a dual standard, one that says "art transcends common function" in order to validate its outrageous price, but then are willing to pay such a price on something that nobody considered noteworthy until a name was attached, I just can't sit tight and say "yeah".

Don't even get me started on the sick feeling I get even thinking that someone would have enough money to PAY $150M for an un-notable doodle/painting when so many do without...

Whatever. I will save that for another rant...

10-15-2009, 08:50 PM	#7
CelexaNY Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 323 Senior Member	You really go way off track with these ridiculous, over the top analogies. How about this. If God made a crappy hammer, it would still be worthless to me. This should be right up your alley...So if they find a hammer that some guy Noah used to build a boat, it's no different than the claw-head I bought at the hardware store? Hell, probably worth less; mine has those non-slip ridges. If that hammer were as old as what should be Noah's age, then the two should be of comparable historical significance. Except you forget that there is no real proof of Noah, so a comparison like this, in which an item could prove a religious belief is a little unfair, as the item would hold additional worth compared to its intrinsic value. Would I think it would be worth $150M? HELL no, pun intended. What's being recognized is someone who would be on any list of the most influential people in human history. The $150 million tag is meaningless. Peter Paul Biro got it right: "I would say it is priceless."[/QUOTE] I wouldn't. I Just because Jefferson was a founding father does not make his stools any more important than the next guy. The problem we are having is instilling too much value on a name. So if it turns out that Leonardo did not paint this, but merely touched it while it was wet, would it still be worth more? The sad thing is that we lose track of what is truly important about an item sometimes. Its historical context is a valuable thing, but not to this magnitude. If everything in this world were valuable just because it was old, we would not be able to function very well, now would we? If you want to pay $150M for a "priceless" painting that even Leonardo did not think was good enough to put his name on, then go ahead, but when we make a dual standard, one that says "art transcends common function" in order to validate its outrageous price, but then are willing to pay such a price on something that nobody considered noteworthy until a name was attached, I just can't sit tight and say "yeah". Don't even get me started on the sick feeling I get even thinking that someone would have enough money to PAY $150M for an un-notable doodle/painting when so many do without... Whatever. I will save that for another rant...
	Quote