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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.