hypochondriac

I'm definitely having more kids. Life is fantastic and it's a million times better when you have children to bring up. Outside of the Internet and the mass media I find most people just want to live happy and fulfilled lives being pleasant to other people and generally making positive contributions to society. Ignore the vast majority of social media and it's much better.

I'm sorry you are having difficulty understanding. Sensible and proportionate responses so that we are generally greener is a good thing. Mass panic, blocking half of London, hanging off every word an autistic teenager says and calling for meat and air etravel to be banned are things I'm not so enthusiastic about.

No I think sensible precautions are fine. These batsh*t people including the founder of extinction rebellion are going on about cannabalism in Britain, about literal human extinction in our lifetimes and many of them are basically anarcho-communists using this green agenda to push their regressive policies. If someone sensible come out and suggests reasonable policies like plastic bag reductions or reducing dumping in the oceans then I'm fully supportive. If a load of smelly hippies want to go and clog up London and have a rave whilst telling everyone we have to panic now (and visiting McDonald's for a Big Mac) then I'll treat them with the derision they deserve. Everyone doing a bit will undoubtedly make a small difference and I'm supportive of that but that isn't what these people are "demanding." Giant sweeping changes of the economy and the hobbling of us as a nation may rapidly reduce our climate footprint but all it will really do is send jobs and opportunities abroad and ruin us as a nation. Let's have sensible conversations about what, we can realistically achieve without the silliness.

So it's really about making yourself feel good then if it's going to have virtually no effect.

This was a referendum and that's how it's treated.

Not voting isn't an endorsement either way. If you don't vote then you don't have a voice.

Well then we agree. It isn't going to happen and all this nonsense in London is going to achieve nothing except annoy everyone.

It seems obvious to me that clearly the world is already massively overpopulated. If you were looking at things entirely without a conscience it would be clear that wiping out half the world's population would benefit the globe enormously. Failing that, I can't see there is a huge amount we can do as we won't be seeing any sort of change from India or China any time soon. Human beings will adapt and survive in the long term barring some other catastrophic event but maybe we won't have such cushy lives that we have lived for the last 100 odd years. Ultimately a small amount of hardship might end up being a good thing considering the entitled pampered whiny millenials who exist now.

Let's be honest. There's a reason that technologically advanced Western nations are being targeted despite the likes of the UK contributing piddling amounts of carbon globally. Lots of these people just want greater government control and to smash capitalism and are using prophecies of global extinction to bring it in. You can bet if they brought in some new rules such as restricting flying for example that the rich and powerful snobs like Prince Harry or Emma Thompson would be the sort of people who would be flouting the rules and getting round it by making a donation to a carbon neutral charity.

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.