Wintry Weather Heading Our Way
News1 min ago
Why all the tears?
53 Answers
http://
It matters not whether they win or lose, the tears run down their cheeks, this is a new phenomenon it seems, because I can never remember it happening on such occasions in the past.
Since the death of Princess Di the nation seems to have become more emotional, why is this?
It matters not whether they win or lose, the tears run down their cheeks, this is a new phenomenon it seems, because I can never remember it happening on such occasions in the past.
Since the death of Princess Di the nation seems to have become more emotional, why is this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Non sequitur in your argument, AOG - I was not talking about the current London generation(s) that were involved in the riots.
I wrote:
"Perhaps if the generation that AOG infers to had shown a little more emotion in their lives, we wouldn't be so mucked up as a country."
In other words, I am talking about the older generations that in lacking the manifestation of emotion perhaps did not transfer their values, guidance and that the release of emotion is actually a good thing for managing crises in life."
What you are trying to achieve is to pervert the argument to meet your own agenda.
I am not surprised, mind you.
I wrote:
"Perhaps if the generation that AOG infers to had shown a little more emotion in their lives, we wouldn't be so mucked up as a country."
In other words, I am talking about the older generations that in lacking the manifestation of emotion perhaps did not transfer their values, guidance and that the release of emotion is actually a good thing for managing crises in life."
What you are trying to achieve is to pervert the argument to meet your own agenda.
I am not surprised, mind you.
AOG, is your argument that the present generation would not save the country? Have you any evidence for that proposition?
Don't forget that it's your generation that had a leadership that fancied appeasement with Hitler, and the Munich agreement was greeted with popular enthusiasm. (Not surprising,you may say, given that the Great War was a recent memory). But when the bombs were raining down, people behaved as you would expect. There is no reason it wouldn't be the same now, nor that conscripts would be any less brave now. (Let's forget shall we, that looters would go in as soon as the raids ended? They were a minority).
Please explain how the 'stiff upper lip' makes a difference. What does it do, that honest display of emotion doesn't (apart from repressing emotion being psychologicaly damaging, and not natural) ?
Don't forget that it's your generation that had a leadership that fancied appeasement with Hitler, and the Munich agreement was greeted with popular enthusiasm. (Not surprising,you may say, given that the Great War was a recent memory). But when the bombs were raining down, people behaved as you would expect. There is no reason it wouldn't be the same now, nor that conscripts would be any less brave now. (Let's forget shall we, that looters would go in as soon as the raids ended? They were a minority).
Please explain how the 'stiff upper lip' makes a difference. What does it do, that honest display of emotion doesn't (apart from repressing emotion being psychologicaly damaging, and not natural) ?
"Our generation saved the country, it is some of those who have followed that have 'mucked' the country up."
Jesus Christ, why does it always come back to World War II with you?
I find this ludicrous idea of generational piggy-backing to be in very poor taste. People take responsibility for their own actions and contributions. The idea that we're all implicated in the actions of people who happen to have been born at around the same time as us is utterly ridiculous.
I have no problem if you want to claim to have 'saved the country' if you directly participated in the war effort. I really don't see how you can justifiably claim to have done so just by virtue of sharing the sperm lottery with those who did.
Jesus Christ, why does it always come back to World War II with you?
I find this ludicrous idea of generational piggy-backing to be in very poor taste. People take responsibility for their own actions and contributions. The idea that we're all implicated in the actions of people who happen to have been born at around the same time as us is utterly ridiculous.
I have no problem if you want to claim to have 'saved the country' if you directly participated in the war effort. I really don't see how you can justifiably claim to have done so just by virtue of sharing the sperm lottery with those who did.
not sure how you all got into this from the original question, but must say it's absurd to suggest that anyone knew or indeed could have done anything about Hitler's rise to power. It would seem Churchill was one of the few who did and the politicians weren't listening, primarily because of the catastrophic 1914-1918 conflict. No one wanted to go through that again, but to suggest that it was Britain or her people who could have stopped him seems ridiculous. Had the German people seen what was coming wouldn't they have had a hand in his demise, or did many who had suffered under the conditions of surrender from the previous war feel aggrieved they had been treated so.
This really is a generations thing. There is nothing wrong in showing your emotions, in fact there is good evidence it is good for your health. If a sportsman, commentator or indeed a fan is overcome by the emotion of a sporting event and cries then that is not weakness as the OP implies. Just because someone cries when their team wins, loses or scores does not mean they that if it came to it, they would not defend their country with their all. Someone emotionally repressed may feel unconfortable when Murray blubbs at Wimbledon, but the rest of us empathise and and he goes up in our estimation.
