3 ms·

This is moving the goalposts, to choose an apt metaphor. The point is twofold: 1) We spend money on other types of cultural amenities all the time and nobody

This is moving the goalposts, to choose an apt metaphor. The point is twofold: 1) We spend money on other types of cultural amenities all the time and nobody cares; and... 2) That spending is of an amount that lodges it appropriately within this conversation.

leereeves 8y ago
Paying taxes to sponsor nonprofits that don't charge for admission is a bit different from paying taxes to sponsor private enterprises that charge hundreds of dollars for tickets and pay multi-million dollar salaries.
- dionidium 8y ago
  Yes, there are differences. For example, another difference is that the people in museums don't wear jerseys, but athletes do. The question isn't whether there are differences; it's whether those differences matter. I don't think they matter. More specifically, I don't think they're relevant to the objections here, which are largely cultural in nature. In fact, what the high salaries in sports reveal to me is that the public wants sports a lot more than they want museums.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, I don't believe it's moving any goalposts. The fact of the matter is, the stadiums are for teams owned by billionaires who could easily build their own stadium, and they get far more in subsidies than the other things you mentioned. $1.3 billion was raised in your article, but it was split between several different things.
- dionidium 8y ago
  I think the numbers I posted speak for themselves. You looked at the same numbers and drew a wildly different conclusion (for reasons I think I know). So I guess that means we're at an impasse.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    They did. But you ignored the fact that your original number was the amount raised for several different organizations over a longer period of time. You chose not to mention that, for reasons I think I know.
    - dionidium 8y ago
      You're inordinately focused on the fact that the zoo-museum district includes "several different organizations." You seem to think this is a crucially-important fact, one I'm trying to conceal, for some reason, but neither of those beliefs are true. > You chose not to mention that, for reasons I think I know. You should re-read my original comment, the one that started this truly silly subthread, which twice reveals that there are multiple organizations included in the district.

leereeves 8y ago

Paying taxes to sponsor nonprofits that don't charge for admission is a bit different from paying taxes to sponsor private enterprises that charge hundreds of dollars for tickets and pay multi-million dollar salaries.

dionidium 8y ago
Yes, there are differences. For example, another difference is that the people in museums don't wear jerseys, but athletes do. The question isn't whether there are differences; it's whether those differences matter. I don't think they matter. More specifically, I don't think they're relevant to the objections here, which are largely cultural in nature. In fact, what the high salaries in sports reveal to me is that the public wants sports a lot more than they want museums.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

No, I don't believe it's moving any goalposts. The fact of the matter is, the stadiums are for teams owned by billionaires who could easily build their own stadium, and they get far more in subsidies than the other things you mentioned. $1.3 billion was raised in your article, but it was split between several different things.

dionidium 8y ago
I think the numbers I posted speak for themselves. You looked at the same numbers and drew a wildly different conclusion (for reasons I think I know). So I guess that means we're at an impasse.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  They did. But you ignored the fact that your original number was the amount raised for several different organizations over a longer period of time. You chose not to mention that, for reasons I think I know.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    You're inordinately focused on the fact that the zoo-museum district includes "several different organizations." You seem to think this is a crucially-important fact, one I'm trying to conceal, for some reason, but neither of those beliefs are true. > You chose not to mention that, for reasons I think I know. You should re-read my original comment, the one that started this truly silly subthread, which twice reveals that there are multiple organizations included in the district.