2500 year old ancient Phoenician port destroyed to build skyscrapers - Polidicks

Way to respect the inventors of the alphabet.

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;36542383]i forgot that the entire sahara desert and majority of central africa were within lebanon's domain yeah, duh, they should have just built there instead[/QUOTE] My point was that we're not running out of space on Earth.

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;36542660][img]http://www.antarctica.org.nz/images/Sat%20Map1%20copy.JPG[/img][/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/FullMoon2010.jpg/280px-FullMoon2010.jpg[/img] Now on-topic: this is sad news indeed, but at least they're not tearing down the pyramids. ...Yet.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;36543248][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/FullMoon2010.jpg/280px-FullMoon2010.jpg[/img] Now on-topic: this is sad news indeed, but at least they're not tearing down the pyramids. ...Yet.[/QUOTE] they're not called the pyramids anymore, its illegal to call them by that name you gotta say pepsimids now

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;36543248][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/FullMoon2010.jpg/280px-FullMoon2010.jpg[/img] Now on-topic: this is sad news indeed, but at least they're not tearing down the pyramids. ...Yet.[/QUOTE] I can see 5,000 years from now "First settlement of the moon was demolished today in preparation for a new landing dock" -sigh-

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36543353]I can see 5,000 years from now "First settlement of the moon was demolished today in preparation for a new landing dock" -sigh-[/QUOTE] Hopefully 500 years from now. Optimism!

Stop whining about this. Did you even see the picture in the article? There's not even intact buildings or anything, I don't know if you guys are picturing a majestic ancient ruin on the coast during sunset being destroyed by the evil government or what, but its literally just some holes in the rocks surrounded by OTHER skyscrapers now. [img]http://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2012/06/28/80807_mainimg.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;36543464]Hopefully 500 years from now. Optimism![/QUOTE] Well I meant in 5,000 years it'll get [I]demolished[/I] not built :v: [editline]28th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;36543556]Stop whining about this. Did you even see the picture in the article? There's not even intact buildings or anything, I don't know if you guys are picturing a majestic ancient ruin on the coast during sunset being destroyed by the evil government or what, but its literally just some holes in the rocks surrounded by OTHER skyscrapers now. [img]http://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2012/06/28/80807_mainimg.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] What does aesthetics have to do with whether it should be destroyed or not?

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;36540966]For fuck sake don't be sad about this. Was anyone using it to ship oils and skins still? Yes, it's nice to have old things but when they get in the way it becomes akin to a type of societal hoarding mentallity. Hooray Progress![/QUOTE] you're serious? apply that mentality to, say, machu picchu. or the colosseum. sure, they may be some of the only standing relics of a culture thousands of years old (the harbor in the article is in fact older than either of these) but as long as they're not holding worship or gladiators, what good are they? right? you guys are tools and since I just know that the (flawed) argument that those are standing structures whereas this is mostly just a rock will be brought up, it would be the same as paving over ancient norse longhouse foundations in the places they settled.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;36543556]Stop whining about this. Did you even see the picture in the article? There's not even intact buildings or anything, I don't know if you guys are picturing a majestic ancient ruin on the coast during sunset being destroyed by the evil government or what, but its literally just some holes in the rocks surrounded by OTHER skyscrapers now. [img]http://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2012/06/28/80807_mainimg.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I am so incredibly emotionally distressed at the destruction of that beautiful monument! I'm sure that everyone could have built Skyscrapers in the middle of the almost uninhabitable Sahara instead of removing that gorgeous tourist attraction and landmark that is surely a place of great history!

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;36542660][img]http://www.antarctica.org.nz/images/Sat%20Map1%20copy.JPG[/img][/QUOTE] I find it funny that you guys hate on building a skyscraper on an old building in the middle of a city, and support building on a landscape pretty much unblemished by human structures

[QUOTE=Greenen72;36543686]I find it funny that you guys hate on building a skyscraper on an old building in the middle of a city, and support building on a landscape pretty much unblemished by human structures[/QUOTE] wow okay first, it was one (1) guy that posted antarctica and he did it in response to "we're running out of room to build". he's just making a point that there's an entire [I]continent[/I] that hasn't been settled. the implication being that there's plenty of land everywhere, for a long time

[QUOTE=KaIibos;36543719]wow okay first, it was one (1) guy that posted antarctica[/QUOTE] and the 7 people who rated it winner :)

[QUOTE=Greenen72;36543686]I find it funny that you guys hate on building a skyscraper on an old building in the middle of a city, and support building on a landscape pretty much unblemished by human structures[/QUOTE] Personally, I find ancient buildings worth more to human civilization than land untouched by it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36543752]Personally, I find ancient buildings worth more to human civilization than land untouched by it.[/QUOTE] to ruin a beautiful landscape in favour of the same corporatism that ruined the port would equally terrible.

[QUOTE=Bobie;36543764]to ruin a beautiful landscape in favour of the same corporatism that ruined the port would equally terrible.[/QUOTE] If it had to come down from one or the other, I pick the ruins.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;36543556]Stop whining about this. Did you even see the picture in the article? There's not even intact buildings or anything, I don't know if you guys are picturing a majestic ancient ruin on the coast during sunset being destroyed by the evil government or what, but its literally just some holes in the rocks surrounded by OTHER skyscrapers now. [img]http://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2012/06/28/80807_mainimg.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] You'd be surprised what you can learn from a ruin like that.

When the destruction of history is left to people, they dither, there is outrage, corruption and indecision often mar the process. Few have the courage to overcome such obstacles to improve the lives of the city-dwellers. Baron von Haussman was one such person, but he is a rare, ambitious type. What we need is another great fire in the middle of every major city, so that we may reclaim this prime land which has been formerly snatched away by misguided perceptions of value. We need revolutionary changes in urban design, focusing on efficiency, safety, and progress. London did this, Toronto did this, Chicago did this. Crumbling, ancient artefacts be damned; we have better artefacts! Reduce your local museum to ashes, they may one day be the foundation of a kilometre-high tower! We all should just build in existing centres of human civilization, and move all our precious history to the Sahara and Antarctica.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;36543738]and the 7 people who rated it winner :)[/QUOTE] my point was that you said "you guys" with no distinction as if you were referring to everyone in the thread

[QUOTE=KaIibos;36543578]you're serious? apply that mentality to, say, machu picchu. or the colosseum. sure, they may be some of the only standing relics of a culture thousands of years old (the harbor in the article is in fact older than either of these) but as long as they're not holding worship or gladiators, what good are they? right? you guys are tools and since I just know that the (flawed) argument that those are standing structures whereas this is mostly just a rock will be brought up, it would be the same as paving over ancient norse longhouse foundations in the places they settled.[/QUOTE] The only purpose those buildings stand, and specifically in the case of the colosseum, is because it's cool for people to come and look at an impressive structure, built to last and hold strong. On the other hand, we have a port in ruin, and in the middle of what seems to be a metro area. I fail to see how something like that would be really worth saving, since it's not exactly the prime example of art or architecture.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;36543911]The only purpose those buildings stand, and specifically in the case of the colosseum, is because it's cool for people to come and look at an impressive structure, built to last and hold strong. On the other hand, we have a port in ruin, and in the middle of what seems to be a metro area. I fail to see how something like that would be really worth saving, since it's not exactly the prime example of art or architecture.[/QUOTE] it doesn't [I]matter[/I] if it's not aesthetically pleasing. the alamo is a tiny crumbling mission that is not impressive to look upon at all. it's the history of a place that matters. this thing is nearly as old as the city of rome

[QUOTE=Greenen72;36543911]The only purpose those buildings stand, and specifically in the case of the colosseum, is because it's cool for people to come and look at an impressive structure, built to last and hold strong. On the other hand, we have a port in ruin, and in the middle of what seems to be a metro area. I fail to see how something like that would be really worth saving, since it's not exactly the prime example of art or architecture.[/QUOTE] it's a 2500 year old port, it's cultural and historical value far outweighs any relating to aesthetic or tourist value. do people have to visit it in order for it to remain?

Although I am saddened by the fact that they are taking down such a rich piece of history, I still find it fitting to replace a symbol of the past with a symbol of modernity and human engineering. I would rather skyscrapers be built rather than a landfill.

[QUOTE=KaIibos;36544035]it doesn't [I]matter[/I] if it's not aesthetically pleasing. the alamo is a tiny crumbling mission that is not impressive to look upon at all. it's the history of a place that matters. this thing is nearly as old as the city of rome[/QUOTE] Sorry, but I don't seem to remember the good ol' Battle of Phoenician Port [QUOTE=Bobie;36544062]it's a 2500 year old port, it's cultural and historical value far outweighs any relating to aesthetic or tourist value. do people have to visit it in order for it to remain?[/QUOTE] Does the site necessarily need to physically exist to still have a cultural and historical value? I'm just as good reading about the structures destroyed in WWII than going to the sites myself and examining the plaque marking where it fell

[QUOTE=Greenen72;36544179]Sorry, but I don't seem to remember the good ol' Battle of Phoenician Port you're changing your reasoning. first it was because those buildings were impressive, and now it's because it has historical value.[/QUOTE] problem [QUOTE=Greenen72;36544179]Does the site necessarily need to physically exist to still have a cultural and historical value? I'm just as good reading about the structures destroyed in WWII than going to the sites myself and examining the plaque marking where it fell[/QUOTE] wouldn't you rather you were able to visit it like if auschwitz was torn down and a plaque was put there, would you feel the same way? also, [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1194059&p=36543578&viewfull=1#post36543578]the last part of my first post applies to both of your arguments[/url]

History and culture are important, and dismissing them removes a part of humanity, namely one of the key parts - diversity. Destroying them in the name of "progress" (aka more of the same) is quite heartless. If it's really so ugly then build a museum over it instead of bulldozing it.

The aesthetics don't exist because nothing actually exists there besides some ancient foundations. And aesthetics only go along with tourism. It's nothing like the Colosseum, or the Alamo. Those are still intact, they hold a LOT of historic value, AND they are centers for tourism. It's even being argued that its not a port at all because different groups of archaeologists have been saying it was too high and too far away from the coast to be a port or shipbuilding facility.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;36544395]The aesthetics don't exist because nothing actually exists there besides some ancient foundations. And aesthetics only go along with tourism. It's nothing like the Colosseum, or the Alamo. Those are still intact, they hold a LOT of historic value, AND they are centers for tourism. It's even being argued that its not a port at all because different groups of archaeologists have been saying it was too high and too far away from the coast to be a port or shipbuilding facility.[/QUOTE] re: just foundations [QUOTE=KaIibos;36544233] also, [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1194059&p=36543578&viewfull=1#post36543578]the last part of my first post applies to both of your arguments[/url][/QUOTE] you're saying that something very old is only valuable if a) it looks cool b) it brings in tourism $$ c) it has a lot of history attached to it we might as well pave over a LOT of ancient stuff then (also lol what does its ancient function have ANYthing to do with this)

[QUOTE=Kendra;36540780][url=http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Jun-28/178530-construction-firm-demolishes-phoenician-port.ashx#axzz1z660ZVqv]Source[/url] Heh, capitalism...[/QUOTE] I am an archeology minor who is about to melt down Fuck

[QUOTE=KaIibos;36544233]problem wouldn't you rather you were able to visit it like if auschwitz was torn down and a plaque was put there, would you feel the same way? also, [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1194059&p=36543578&viewfull=1#post36543578]the last part of my first post applies to both of your arguments[/url] 1. nice quote 2. yeah, and how much historical value does the ruined port have? Feel like saying it has equal footing as the pyramids?[/QUOTE] 3. Why would I need to visit a place to know and appreciate what went on there? 4. No, it doesn't [quote]you're changing your reasoning. first it was because those buildings were impressive, and now it's because it has historical value. the coloseum has amazing architecture, the alamo has a battle cry and american attention on it. a land-locked port has fuck-all [/quote]