The Second Titanic Will Apparently Be Built

I think more people would be interested than superstitious and thus more people would ride on it. One ocean liner even took an voyage exactly like the Titanic, leaving on April 10th at Southampton, England to New York City and it did not sink.

Furthermore when they build this replica you have to understand that they obviously have modern devices on it, but overall the rooms would be the same. There might be a television, but really nothing else. You would not need a refrigerator probably because the ship had a dining room for all three classes, why would you waste money storing your own items on the ship when you have gourmet meals from the dining rooms? The exterior will look the ship to, but it will have better engines, better safety devices, and I am sure enough lifeboats. There is nothing to be worried about.

Because of curiosity. What was it like to be on the Titanic. And I believe this is a wonderful tribute to those who died.

Firstly, really hard to read. You should use more dots.

Secondly, the media of the time thought the design was strong. And when it sunk news papers started to call it unsinkable. (if you want I can find you a few sources to back up my claim)

thirdly, yes the owners never did advertise it unsinkable, the media did afterwards.

I meant that even if this actually benefited them, it's only a good use of money from the company's standpoint.

Also, this seems a little disrespectful. "Hey everybody, now you can relive that tragic night the Titanic sunk into cold, unforgiving waters, claiming the lives of literally hundreds!"

Your argument doesn't make sense. Of course a small business furniture shop can't end poverty, and it would be foolish and stupid to expect it to give away all it's money. This is a massive multi-billiondollar shipping company. They make tens of billions of dollars each year, and have so much money they can literally throw away 4 billion dollars of it for an experimental pet project of some bourgy bastard.

You know those charity ads you see on TV? The ones where they say you can feed an entire family of starving Africans for 50 cents a month? That means that with 0.25% of the money this project costs, he could feed an entire African nation. So imagine what 4 billion fucking dollars could do to help people. This fat bastard could literally save hundreds of millions of people with this money, which probably wouldn't even make a dent in his, and his companies earnings, but instead, he decides to make a new toy that he can show off.

It isn't so much this one issue that is pissing me off. What is pissing me off is that all it would take to end poverty in Africa is 30 billion dollars. If every multi-billionaire, or multi-billion company dollar could give a tiny, tiny portion of their money, which would be literally no personal loss for themselves, BILLIONS of lives could be saved in the long run. But they don't, because capitalism literally runs on greed.

It fucking disturbs me to hell that capitalists are like 'WELL IT'S NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SAVE LIVES'. If you're in a position where you can save millions of lives at no personal expense, then yes, it is absolutely your fucking responsibility as a half-decent human being to give a tiny portion of your wealth to save them. That this isn't happening at all, and that billions of people in the capitalist world are starving, is absolutely fucking proof that this system doesn't work.

You people drive me fucking crazy. Blaagghfuck

Where did you get that number?

Where does it say that people have a responsibility and have to help people poorer than them?

Probably from the charity commercials statistic.

Its called motherfucking morals. If you have one hundred dollars, and giving someone one dollar could save them from death, and you don't give them it, it makes you a horrible person. If you have billions of dollars and you can save lives by giving a TINY bit of your money, but you're a cheap bastard and hold onto it, and because you didn't help them people die, it means you are not fit to live on Earth. I'd rather go broke and save a million people than buy another billion dollar mansion in the Caribbean.

Again, where does it say you have to. Yes, people should, but nobody has to.

No one ever said have to. It is your moral responsibility to help people. But it is not an obligation.

Big waste of Money and time.

saying it's your responsibility is saying you have to.

No its not. Its my responsibility to do my homework. But I can choose not to do it.

They are actually rebuilding the World Trade Center.

No, its not the same thing, its a new design and not nearly so easy to collapse. Incidentally, I saw it on Saturday (from I-95 on my way to Connecticut). It is already a major part of the NYC skyline, and is also now the tallest building in NYC, even if it has not been completed yet.

No shit.

I saw it on CNN Student News.

Really, I'm pretty sure they don't make "tens of billions of dollars each year" in profit and that investing in a Titanic themed cruise ship isn't considered throwing money away in the ship industry.

You know that this is both factually wrong and incredibly stupid right? There is NO way to feed an entire African family(which usually has more than 3 kids) for 50 cents a month. Even the cheapest food is more expensive than that.
And to claim that it would "save hundreds of millions" is equally stupid, since hunger problems is only a big problem in some African countries like Ethiopia that is currently(or at least until recently) experiencing severe droughts.
This toy could actually become profitable. I'm sure a lot of people would be stupid enough to think a trip on a new Titanic would be exciting...

No, if I distributed 30 billion dollars to each African that would be around 30 $ to each person. How long do you think that would last? You would also not save "BILLIONS OF LIVES!"(dramatic voice) in the long run. A billion lives is every single person living in Africa at the moment... and you know they are actually improving their overall economy/GDP. To save more than two billion(you said billions) would be an effort over hundreds of years, and in that time, the African countries will have reached acceptable living standards, unless something apocalyptic happens.

Okay....
It is not anybody's responsibility to help someone else. It's something (like you said) decent human beings do.
Sorry to correct you here, but it's actually only around 925 million people that are currently "suffering from undernurishment" in the whole world, which is not the same as starvation... There is no such thing as a capitalist and a socialist world, we all share the same planet...

At least we can agree on this...

I just want to clear things up, I agree with most of your basics(rich people should help poor, the current "system" doesn't work etc.) but I can't abide when you exaggerate, provide false facts and blatantly preach like you just did in this post.

That is why I mentioned it...

Picture doesn't show.

Please read this sentence from a brochure from 1910, two years before the ship sank. Again the company is not saying she is unsinkable, they are saying they are designed to be unsinkable because of the safety systems on board. There are not going to openly say "Hey our ship can't sink, yeah!" because that would be terrible. In 1911, Shipbuilder Magazine looked at Titanic's safety designed and declared her "practically unsinkable".

Here is the special cover issue made about Titanic by Shipbuilder Magazine in 1911:

Obviously you did not read previous arguments.