hypochondriac

Interesting. Because I don't see a lot of protest aimed at China and India. Until those two countries change it really won't make much of a difference what we do.

Change the word apologise for regret if you like. Point still stands.

Considering the original poster was asking why an envoy was crying about an event 250 years ago, I would suggest this thread is very much about reactions to our history and how far we go in acknowledging (yes) and tearing down (no) things our country and historical figures did.

I think you should read my previous replies where I already stated I was happy to learn about atrocities alongside accomplishments and I further outlined what my issues were.

Using words like "upset" "triggered" and "pretending history didn't happen" is just bizarre. When has anyone said that? I'm writing a couple of sentences on a saints forum, I'm not upset or triggered in the slightest.

Yeah xstreams got raided a few weeks back. As far as I can see most of them are down except sportsmania.

What is everyone using nowadays? I use sportsmania but I've leant it to a friend today.

Maybe we could delve into history and express regret for every unfortunate thing that happened since the formation of the nation to save time. Then we won't have to do it again.

Sorry I can't agree. Tearing down statues is moronic. "One letter writer to the Daily Telegraph argued: "The trouble… is that almost every person of that era held opinions that were commonplace at the time but are at odds with modern thinking. Taken to its extreme, this approach would lead to the eradication of almost every building and statue commemorating notable figures of the past, including the Albert Memorial and Nelson's Column."

That view would have more validity if the people who go on about this "more rounded" view of history weren't the same ones screaming for statues to be torn down, Kipling quotes to be scrubbed from walls etc etc. I don't have a problem with learning about past atrocities alongside accomplishments but it never stops at that, identitarians want to attempt to airbrush anyone who ever said anything controversial out of any positive history.

I don't think there are many people pretending that bad things didn't happen. In todays society its much more likely to be the other way round as I already said, where an unpleasant act or word is emphasised above everything else and it simply gives the impression that you hate everything your country has done.

Especially if the wrong is about calling someone a rapist when they have been acquitted of the crime.

I don't think anyone should lie, I just don't think great men and women of history should be castigated for views they held or actions they took that are normally criticised by applying today's morality on them. Every single country in the history of the world has done some bad things but the way a certain type of people go on, they don't want to recognise any of the great and good stuff they simply want to self flagellate and cry about the sins of their distant ancestors.

Yes of course it is. Only morons try to pretend that this is not the case. I would recommend reading Douglas Murray's latest book the madness of crowds which has a whole chapter on this sort of delusion.

I think it's more that a certain breed of lefty now encourages so called white guilt and denigration of all British history and historical figures as evil. See the recent campaigns against Churchill and Kipling for example.

Yep and I'm very conscious of that which is why I think criminalising this is a bad idea. I was fortunate when my little one was born to have a family with decades of childcare experience between them but even with that it's daunting when you start. Nothing prepares you for those first few days at home with a newborn.

Blimey I agree with soggy about something. Momentous day.

Well I agree with your last paragraph. I think it's difficult as I don't like government interference in our lives either. I do think with the children you mention that in almost every case their poor behaviour is as a result of poor parenting or as a result of a mental health condition. In neither case should smacking be used for those scenarios, that's not to say that you can't still be firm and discipline children and I would consider myself to pretty knowledgeable on this subject.

If people want to cry about historical events that didn't affect them then that's up to them. It's a modern thing to tack on modern morality to a situation that happened years ago and I find the whole thing really odd.

How do we know that the parent always knows what is best for their children? What about parents who overfeed their children? Or overly protective parents who never let their children leave their sight? We don't just ignore those behaviours, we educate the parents about why that behaviour is going to have more of a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of their children than alternatives. One particular mother comes to mind who was raised in care and as a consequence did not possess the necessary skills to love her children properly without guidance. She certainly didn't know what was best for her child and whilst this is an extreme example, I could give you hundreds of times where parents clearly aren't doing the best things for their children.

Unless a child has severe mental health problems, I don't believe there is a situation where a child is being a "c*nt no matter what you say or do." I have extensive childcare and behaviour management experience and I haven't encountered a situation that would require smacking as a corrective measure. I don't intend this to come accross as an insult, but it does seem like you don't have a ton of experience in that area which is why I said originally on this thread that education was a lot more important than punishment.

I don't think there should be any corrective actions used against children that would cause them physical pain when there are other actions available that can achieve the same thing.

Indeed. We also know that there are more effective parenting methods that correct or control behaviour that isn't the fear of pain or violence. If smacking were the only way to instill discipline, self control and correct behaviour then smacking would be more justifiable but it isn't.

And I said as such above. I don't support legislation against smacking but I certainly don't condone it in this day and age when we know so much more about child development. Discussing how exactly to smack your child is just bizarre. There are so many effective methods of discipline that don't involve physical violence, how about we focus on those rather than if we should be smacking our children with open or closed palms?

Erm no.