Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 27, 2018, 02:10:53 PM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/27/dan-snow-rewrites-history-female-spitfire-pilots
Rich coming from people who are supposedly at the vanguard of truth in education?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/27/dan-snow-rewrites-history-female-spitfire-pilots
Rich coming from people who are supposedly at the vanguard of truth in education?
it seems to only come from a person, not people. Oh, and is the fact that he is a humanist relevant? If so, how?
-
it seems to only come from a person, not people. Oh, and is the fact that he is a humanist relevant? If so, how?
Humanist UK consider themselves as the vanguard of truth in education do they not?
-
Humanist UK consider themselves as the vanguard of truth in education do they not?
Don't know but even if true how is that relevant to what Dan Snow has said and done here?
-
But women were Spitfire pilots. There were female pilots who ferried aircraft from factories to operational airfields. However, they did not take part in combat.
-
But women were Spitfire pilots. There were female pilots who ferried aircraft from factories to operational airfields. However, they did not take part in combat.
Dan Snow told his daughter that they did fly in combat. He lied to his child and I don't really know why.
-
Jeremy,
Dan Snow told his daughter that they did fly in combat. He lied to his child and I don't really know why.
But you would if you read the article - his quotes tell you why. He probably told his six-year-old daughter that Father Christmas brings presents too.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/27/dan-snow-rewrites-history-female-spitfire-pilots
Rich coming from people who are supposedly at the vanguard of truth in education?
Why do you drag a person's religion/beliefs into absolutely everything that they do and say?
In this case I would, having read the article, suggest that Snow's beliefs are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
Are you seriously asking everyone on this forum to believe that you have never, ever, said sonething that was un-Christian?
-
But women were Spitfire pilots. There were female pilots who ferried aircraft from factories to operational airfields. However, they did not take part in combat.
Including, of course, Amy Johnson, who joined the newly formed Air Transport Auxiliary during the 2nd World War.
-
Owls,
Why do you drag a person's religion/beliefs into absolutely everything that they do and say?
In this case I would, having read the article, suggest that Snow's beliefs are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
Are you seriously asking everyone on this forum to believe that you have never, ever, said sonething that was un-Christian?
It’s a guilt-by-association stunt he’s tried before re Lawrence Krauss. He finds someone associated with something he doesn’t like but can’t rebut (atheism, humanism etc), looks for something that person has said or done (allegedly) that others might disagree with, then mentions the two in the same sentence in the hope that any mud from the latter will stick to the former.
It’d be the same if I said something like, “Harold Shipman – devout Methodist. That’s Christianity for you then…” in the hope the slur would stick. It’s contemptible stuff, but he has form for attempting it.
-
It's Flatard reasoning !!!
-
Owls,
It’s a guilt-by-association stunt he’s tried before re Lawrence Krauss. He finds someone associated with something he doesn’t like but can’t rebut (atheism, humanism etc), looks for something that person has said or done (allegedly) that others might disagree with, then mentions the two in the same sentence in the hope that any mud from the latter will stick to the former.
It’d be the same if I said something like, “Harold Shipman – devout Methodist. That’s Christianity for you then…” in the hope the slur would stick. It’s contemptible stuff, but he has form for attempting it.
You can't compare Krauss and Snow with Shipman and you are the only person to attempt a connection. Misrepresentation of the most despicable kind.
Your further attempts to wrap all these things up with the supposed invincibility of atheism and humanism just show how desperate you have become.
Snow is a leading humanist Krauss a leading antitheist both feted by atheist and humanist organisation. Shipman never held that position in Methodism.
Bishops under allegation are vilified on this forum. Hillside opposes any similar reporting of leading atheists let alone any vilification of which, actually, there has been none.
Draw your own conclusions.
-
Jeremy,
But you would if you read the article - his quotes tell you why. He probably told his six-year-old daughter that Father Christmas brings presents too.
What I meant is that I don't think his reasoning stacks up. What harm does it do his six year old daughter to know that women didn't fly combat mission in World War 2?
-
Don't know but even if true how is that relevant to what Dan Snow has said and done here?
I'm just wondering if they could now allow Snow to be at the forefront of any campaign against teaching beliefs as truths.
-
Vladdo,
You can't compare Krauss and Snow with Shipman and you are the only person to attempt a connection. Misrepresentation of the most despicable kind.
No-one did compare them. What was actually compared was the guilt-by-association slur you’re so fond of trying. Ironically, it’s the same mistake you make with your “argmentum ad ridiculum” stupidity.
Oh, and you accusing someone else of being despicable is beyond parody.
Your further attempts to wrap all these things up with the supposed invincibility of atheism and humanism just show how desperate you have become.
No-one did that. Why do you think lying helps you?
Snow is a leading humanist Krauss a leading antitheist both feted by atheist and humanist organisation. Shipman never held that position in Methodism.
And neither Snow nor Kraus did what they (allegedly) did in the name of their other, unrelated beliefs either. Can you see now where you’ve gone wrong again?
Bishops under allegation are vilified on this forum. Hillside opposes any similar reporting of leading atheists let alone any vilification of which, actually, there has been none.
More lying eh? Bishops are vilified because they tell their “flock” to behave one way while behaving differently themselves. Can you find something that Snow said in his BHA role about speaking to six-year-old daughters for comparison purposes?
No, you can't can you. Funny that.
Draw your own conclusions.
People with functioning intellects already have – you crashed and burned.
Again.
-
Jeremy,
What I meant is that I don't think his reasoning stacks up. What harm does it do his six year old daughter to know that women didn't fly combat mission in World War 2?
Well, that's a personal matter between him and his daughter I guess. The journo who wrote the (sympathetic) piece suggests some potentially persuasive reasons for it though
-
Bishops are vilified because they tell their “flock” to behave one way while behaving differently themselves.
Similar I suppose to the vilification received by Krauss from fellow atheists and non religionists.
-
Vladdo,
Similar I suppose to the vilification received by Krauss from fellow atheists and non religionists.
No, not similar at all. If Krauss did receive any vilification (the comments I saw were more that he deserved due process before any judgment be made) then it would have been vilification that would have been heaped upon anyone who allegedly abused a position of authority for personal gratification. That's entirely unrelated to any thoughts he had on physics, atheism, Star Trek, stamp collecting or anything else.
By contrast a Bishop who tells the rest of us that, say, sex outside marriage is wrong and is then found to be having an affair with the verger's wife would be vilified because there's a nexus between those two things.
Is any of this sinking in yet?
Anything at all?
Incidentally, you were just caught out again in a series of lies and misrepresentations which, as ever, you just ignored in your reply as if they hadn't happened. What's your thinking here - that no-one notices? What?
-
Vladdo,
No, not similar at all. If Krauss did receive any vilification (the comments I saw were more that he deserved due process before any judgment be made) then it would have been vilification that would have been heaped upon anyone who allegedly abused a position of authority for personal gratification. That's entirely unrelated to any thoughts he had on physics, atheism, Star Trek, stamp collecting or anything else.
By contrast a Bishop who tells the rest of us that, say, sex outside marriage is wrong and is then found to be having an affair with the verger's wife would be vilified because there's a nexus between those two things.
Is any of this sinking in yet?
Anything at all?
Incidentally, you were just caught out again in a series of lies and misrepresentations which, as ever, you just ignored in your reply as if they hadn't happened. What's your thinking here - that no-one notices? What?
No, several leading atheist individuals and organisations as well as event organisations have dissociated themselves already.
You have understated the seriousness of Krauss,s predicament.
Another turdpolish I fear.
-
Vladdo,
No, several leading atheist individuals and organisations as well as event organisations have dissociated themselves already.
You have understated the seriousness of Krauss,s predicament.
Another turdpolish I fear.
Then, as ever, you fear wrongly.
First, some organisations have dissociated themselves from him, some haven’t. So what?
Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not.
Why are you so utterly dishonest do you think, and what do you think you can gain from it? To my knowledge you’re fooling no-one here, so why waste your time with it?
-
Vladdo,
Then, as ever, you fear wrongly.
First, some organisations have dissociated themselves from him, some haven’t. So what?
Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not.
Why are you so utterly dishonest do you think, and what do you think you can gain from it? To my knowledge you’re fooling no-one here, so why waste your time with it?
Name an organisation that has not dissociated from him or indeed who continues to share platform with him. Given those who have do you consider organisations/individuals who continue public association wise?
As far as I know he is still welcome in synagogues or churches, so this remains a problem raging in atheism.
-
Vladdo,
Then, as ever, you fear wrongly.
First, some organisations have dissociated themselves from him, some haven’t. So what?
Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not.
Why are you so utterly dishonest do you think, and what do you think you can gain from it? To my knowledge you’re fooling no-one here, so why waste your time with it?
Accusing of slur by association is probably less demonstrable than an argumentum ad ridiculum.
Sorry, Hillside hoist up your own pittard.
-
Vladdo,
So I explained where you went wrong again (“Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not”) and you just avoided the arguments again and instead repeated your previous diversion (“Name an organisation that has not dissociated from him or indeed who continues to share platform with him. Given those who have do you consider organisations/individuals who continue public association wise? As far as I know he is still welcome in synagogues or churches, so this remains a problem raging in atheism.”).
Why so dishonest again? If you want to start a discussion about which organisations have disassociated themselves with Krauss or with anyone else by all means do so. In the meantime though, why not after all these years finally man up and actually confront the relevant points and the associated arguments that undo you?
Accusing of slur by association is probably less demonstrable than an argumentum ad ridiculum.
First, no it’s what you’ve done twice now – once re Krauss, and once re Dan Snow.
Second, it’s perfectly “demonstrable” because it’s exactly what you done. Your own words condemn you.
Third, there’s no such thing an an “argumentume ad ridiculum” (you’re trying to say “appeal to ridicule” here), and you remain as fuckwit ignorant or dishonest as ever when you try to deploy it because you fundamentally get the argument wrong no matter how many times it's explained to you - wilfully so I suspect.
Sorry, Hillside hoist up your own pittard.
Fuck me but you’re obtuse (and ignorant). It’s “hoist with his own petard" (Hamlet), and a petard is a kind of grenade so you can’t be “up” it in any case. It actually means being the agent of your own downfall, which ironically is pretty much what you’ve done again with your latest set of misrepresentations and diversions.
-
Vladdo,
So I explained where you went wrong again (“Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not”) and you just avoided the arguments again and instead repeated your previous diversion (“Name an organisation that has not dissociated from him or indeed who continues to share platform with him. Given those who have do you consider organisations/individuals who continue public association wise? As far as I know he is still welcome in synagogues or churches, so this remains a problem raging in atheism.”).
Why so dishonest again? If you want to start a discussion about which organisations have disassociated themselves with Krauss or with anyone else by all means do so. In the meantime though, why not after all these years finally man up and actually confront the relevant points and the associated arguments that undo you?
First, no it’s what you’ve done twice now – once re Krauss, and once re Dan Snow.
Second, it’s perfectly “demonstrable” because it’s exactly what you done. Your own words condemn you.
Third, there’s no such thing an an “argumentume ad ridiculum” (you’re trying to say “appeal to ridicule” here), and you remain as fuckwit ignorant or dishonest as ever when you try to deploy it because you fundamentally get the argument wrong no matter how many times it's explained to you - wilfully so I suspect.
Fuck me but you’re obtuse (and ignorant). It’s “hoist with his own petard" (Hamlet), and a petard is a kind of grenade so you can’t be “up” it in any case. It actually means being the agent of your own downfall, which ironically is pretty much what you’ve done again with your latest set of misrepresentations and diversions.
Hillside
I think had I, like you, jockeyed myself into the position of being the one, if any one, ending up attempting to turdpolish the Krauss affair....I would sound as pissed and as desperate as you do in the above post as well.
A 'Pittard' is a type of fuse used to help an antitheist on his way to losing it.
-
Vladdo,
I think had I, like you, jockeyed myself into the position of being the one, if any one, ending up attempting to turdpolish the Krauss affair....I would sound as pissed and as desperate as you do in the above post as well.
Continued evasion noted.
A 'Pittard' is a type of fuse used to help an antitheist on his way to losing it.
No it isn’t – it’s just you fucking up both a quote and an attempt at an argument.
Look, you’ve been found out on (at least) two mistakes here and now you’re running away from them again while throwing dust out of the rear window in the hope no-one notices. Finally deal with it or don’t – until you finally stop lying you'll have nothing of interest to say either way.
-
Jeremy,
Well, that's a personal matter between him and his daughter I guess.
Not anymore. He's talked about it with a journalist on the Internet.
The journo who wrote the (sympathetic) piece suggests some potentially persuasive reasons for it though
What are they? I didn't see any.
-
The reasons are there. I’m not sure what any of it has to do with him being a humanist though.
-
Hi Rhi,
1. Yes they are
2. Absolutely nothing
-
The reasons are there.
What are they?
There's no reason whatsoever for anybody to lie to their child about whether women were involved in combat in World War 2.
I’m not sure what any of it has to do with him being a humanist though.
Nothing whatsoever. In fact, I didn't know he was one until Vlad started this thread.
-
What are they?
There's no reason whatsoever for anybody to lie to their child about whether women were involved in combat in World War 2.
Nothing whatsoever. In fact, I didn't know he was one until Vlad started this thread.
He found it hard to explain why in the photos the men were ‘rampaging’ and ‘having a great time’ in combat while the women were dressed in big frocks looking bored. Rather than explain about gender inequality in the past, he decided to pretend women took part in combat too and created some fake role models for her so that she will feels it’s ok for girls to ‘rampage’ as well.
I didn’t say that his reasons are good. I find it utterly bizarre that he should think he can fister a love of history by lying about it, and that’s without his glorification of war. I always thought that war historians were the ones most aware of the suffering that it causes.
-
He found it hard to explain why in the photos the men were ‘rampaging’ and ‘having a great time’ in combat while the women were dressed in big frocks looking bored. Rather than explain about gender inequality in the past, he decided to pretend women took part in combat too and created some fake role models for her so that she will feels it’s ok for girls to ‘rampage’ as well.
He could always point out that, whilst the men might have been "rampaging" they were hardly having a great time. He could also point out that whilst women were not allowed in front line units, they did fly planes during the war and it was still a dangerous job.
His daughter is probably already aware that boys and girls get treated differently. You only have to walk into Toys R Us (well, you only had to walk in) to realise that. Here was a great opportunity to explain the inherent unfairness of our society towards women and to instil the idea that his daughter doesn't have to like that or accept it for herself, but instead he pretended that everything is fine and lied about the subject he loves to boot.
I didn’t say that his reasons are good. I find it utterly bizarre that he should think he can fister a love of history by lying about it, and that’s without his glorification of war. I always thought that war historians were the ones most aware of the suffering that it causes.
OK we are probably closer in our opinions on this subject than I thought.
-
I agree with you completely. He actually had a good opportunity to teach his daughter all kinds of things. He didn’t. I find it very weird, but I guess it’ll give her one of those opportunities that we all have to face at some point - learning that our parents can be complete idiots sometimes.
-
I agree with you completely. He actually had a good opportunity to teach his daughter all kinds of things. He didn’t. I find it very weird, but I guess it’ll give her one of those opportunities that we all have to face at some point - learning that our parents can be complete idiots sometimes.
OK here's the other side of the coin. When my nephew was about six or seven, just before Christmas, he said to me that he thought Father Christmas "might actually be Daddy". Should I have confirmed his suspicions? What I actually did was suggest that if he was right and he confronted his parents with the awful truth, the presents might stop. Looking back on it, that seems morally questionable.
-
OK here's the other side of the coin. When my nephew was about six or seven, just before Christmas, he said to me that he thought Father Christmas "might actually be Daddy". Should I have confirmed his suspicions? What I actually did was suggest that if he was right and he confronted his parents with the awful truth, the presents might stop. Looking back on it, that seems morally questionable.
Well that’s because we set ourselves up with the Father Christmas bollocks in the first place. Two of my kids figured out that it was a lie (the youngest one the earliest) but I had to tell my child with Aspergers. I don’t blame you for what you said; you were put on the spot and actually it made me laugh. FWIW I think the best response is ‘ask your dad’. Then it’s up to the parents to either fess up or keep the charade going.
-
He found it hard to explain why in the photos the men were ‘rampaging’ and ‘having a great time’ in combat while the women were dressed in big frocks looking bored. Rather than explain about gender inequality in the past, he decided to pretend women took part in combat too and created some fake role models for her so that she will feels it’s ok for girls to ‘rampage’ as well.
I didn’t say that his reasons are good. I find it utterly bizarre that he should think he can fister a love of history by lying about it, and that’s without his glorification of war. I always thought that war historians were the ones most aware of the suffering that it causes.
I don't think his reasons were good either - there are British female combat pilots now so he could have mentioned how they might never have had that opportunity today if it wasn't for women proving themselves capable in other technical, risky or dangerous activities during the war.
I think suffering is often a necessary component of heroism and societies tend to glorify the 'rampaging' of their war heroes, not just for their victories but also for their suffering and sacrifices. I suppose you have to make it sound dynamic and purposeful if you are going to encourage your daughter to risk rampaging in life rather than live a safe existence.
I tell my daughters they can't expect equal pay to someone else if they don't have the confidence to go after getting equal experience and results - that may involve asking questions, putting in the hours of training, being persistent and confident and demanding in order to get and make the most of opportunities to prove themselves in the role.
Regarding the title of the thread, yes not surprising some Humanist parents teach their children certain beliefs because they want them to adopt certain values, outlooks and perspectives. IMO parenting often involves teaching beliefs, ideals and aspirations.
-
Rhi,
Well that’s because we set ourselves up with the Father Christmas bollocks in the first place. Two of my kids figured out that it was a lie...
Excuse me?
-
Rhi,
Excuse me?
Erm... ask a grown-up.
-
Rhi,
Erm... ask a grown-up.
And jeopardise receiving some lovely presents next Christmas?
No thanks - I'm taking no chances.
-
There's no reason whatsoever for anybody to lie to their child . . .
Are you sure that you have never lied to youir child(ren)?
No Father Christmas, no Tooth Fairy, etc
If you can, with 100% honesty, say that you have not you are a father in billions!
-
Are you sure that you have never lied to youir child(ren)?
No Father Christmas, no Tooth Fairy, etc
If you can, with 100% honesty, say that you have not you are a father in billions!
Why edit Jeremy's post to misrepresent what was written?
-
Well that’s because we set ourselves up with the Father Christmas bollocks in the first place. Two of my kids figured out that it was a lie (the youngest one the earliest) but I had to tell my child with Aspergers. I don’t blame you for what you said; you were put on the spot and actually it made me laugh. FWIW I think the best response is ‘ask your dad’. Then it’s up to the parents to either fess up or keep the charade going.
The morally questionable bit, was using the fact that I was not asked a direct question to deflect and also suggesting a course of action that involved being less than honest with his parents. At the time, I thought nothing of it mainly because I did exactly the same thing when I first worked out that Father Christmas does not exist.
-
you are a father in billions!
Thank you
Oh look, I've quote mined your post to make it look like you are complimenting my parenting skills.
-
Why edit Jeremy's post to misrepresent what was written?
I don't consoder trhat I did - and your type of pedantry is one of the reasons I hardly ever post anymore.
Definitionj "Your type of pedantry" = trying to make someone else look less than you in almost all respects!
You don't see it that way? Of course you don't as you're never on the receiving end.
I have, I think, admitted elsewhere on this Forum that I am not as smart as you, there are reasons for this which I do not wish to divulge, but it does grate sometimes, not always, to be reminded of this particular deficiency.
When it comes down to it who really gives a shit? Abouit, I would think, as many as think that posting a rebuttal of Vlad's neverending losds of old bollocks is going to stop him continuing to do so.
-
I don't consoder trhat I did - and your type of pedantry is one of the reasons I hardly ever post anymore.
Definitionj "Your type of pedantry" = trying to make someone else look less than you in almost all respects!
You don't see it that way? Of course you don't as you're never on the receiving end.
I have, I think, admitted elsewhere on this Forum that I am not as smart as you, there are reasons for this which I do not wish to divulge, but it does grate sometimes, not always, to be reminded of this particular deficiency.
When it comes down to it who really gives a shit? Abouit, I would think, as many as think that posting a rebuttal of Vlad's neverending losds of old bollocks is going to stop him continuing to do so.
I agree with you Owlswing. I also find NS's pedantry frustrating too, and it detracts from the flow of argument and discussion on the thread.
For the record I think your comment was entirely appropriate and its meaning was clear (or certainly was to me). As far as I could see you were challenging JP on two related grounds. The first being whether he only thought lying to children was wrong in the case of women spitfire pilots, or in all cases, in which case Father Christmas/Tooth fairy etc is off limits. And secondly if only about women pilots but not Father Christmas etc, how that is justifiable - surely lying is either entirely wrong or allowable in certain circumstances.
But there is a broader point here - we give information to children in an age appropriate way and also in a manner that supports their development and aspirations. Sometimes that means we give a simplified version of the 'truth', which may not be entirely correct (indeed elements of it may be considered to be lying). But that is because the child does not have the developmental capacity, nor is it helpful to development, to try to explain things beyond the level of understanding. As children get older we give more sophisticated versions which might not entirely align with what they were told when younger. But this is because they are now able to understand matters in a more sophisticated manner.
So on this topic, if a very young girl is in a museum looking at a spitfire and photos of spitfire pilots and asks why they are all men (i.e. why none like me) I see nothing wrong with telling her that in fact their were women pilots (that they were in auxiliary rather than combat roles is likely to be beyond the understanding of that child, and actually not valuable). So the message is that, yes girls can aspire to be pilots. Later, when she is older the more sophisticated story, can be discussed as she will be old enough to understand the more nuanced story, that yes women can be pilots (and there are role models down the years) but in the past women were not permitted to fulfil all roles, both as pilots and in many other professions. And that over time we have worked to eliminate that direct discrimination. The final and most sophisticated story is that although we have eradicated (and made unlawful) direct discrimination, all sorts of discriminatory behaviours still exist (glass ceilings etc) and that more needs to be done.
But to allow a very young girl looking at a spitfire in a museum to feel she can aspire to fly it (something that at her age she probable feels to be heroic and exciting, rather than how she might feel about war when she is older) and not feel that flying spitfires is for boys and not girls, is frankly, a good thing. And if that requires a little white lie, or merely not telling the whole story, then so be it.
-
ProfD, it is perfectly possible to explain to a girl of five, six or seven that back in the day women could fly planes but not in combat, but these days they can fly in combat too, and they will understand it. No point in sugarcoating how the past was for women as in the present they will still have a fight, as Gabriella says.
-
ProfD, it is perfectly possible to explain to a girl of five, six or seven that back in the day women could fly planes but not in combat, but these days they can fly in combat too, and they will understand it. No point in sugarcoating how the past was for women as in the present they will still have a fight, as Gabriella says.
It is possible, but not necessary.
I actually listened to the pod cast and what Dan Snow says is more nuanced. He doesn't not say or claim that they flew in combat. All he said was that his daughter asked why all the pictures of spitfire pilots were 'boys' and he pulled up some photos on his phone that showed that women were also spitfire pilots - I don't think the issue of combat was raised. So at worst he is guilty of omission, rather than overt lying. Indeed he suggests that maybe he 'kind of lied' rather than that he actually lied.
-
Telling the truth is better than lying and these aren’t complicated ideas that kids won’t understand. Dan Snow admits to lying to his daughter. That most definitely is unnecessary, in this situation.
-
Telling the truth is better than lying and these aren’t complicated ideas that kids won’t understand. Dan Snow admits to lying to his daughter. That most definitely is unnecessary, in this situation.
But I'm not clear that the issue of combat was ever part of the discussion - from the pod cast the only point was than his daughter (not sure which one, he has 2 one about 7 the other 4) wanted to know why all the spitfire pilots were 'boys' - to point out that they weren't and that women also flew spitfires isn't actually lying at all - that is the truth. Had his daughter asked why all the combat spitfire pilots were 'boys' then he would have been lying, but my impression is that that wasn't the question.
-
Telling the truth is better than lying and these aren’t complicated ideas that kids won’t understand.
It is possible this was his 4 year old daughter - if so I disagree with you. I think the notion of combat vs non combat and selected roles for women is both beyond developmental understanding and also not relevant to what she was asking. Effectively she wanted to know whether girls could fly spitfires - and the answer is yes they could and yes they did.
-
The roles taken by women in warfare are seriously understated vis women air transporters, The handing out of white feathers during WW1 etc.
And talking about the strange treatment of female history, I found this very interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-44210012
-
But I'm not clear that the issue of combat was ever part of the discussion - from the pod cast the only point was than his daughter (not sure which one, he has 2 one about 7 the other 4) wanted to know why all the spitfire pilots were 'boys' - to point out that they weren't and that women also flew spitfires isn't actually lying at all - that is the truth. Had his daughter asked why all the combat spitfire pilots were 'boys' then he would have been lying, but my impression is that that wasn't the question.
But he is quoted as saying that he lied. He thinks he lied. What did he lie about?
-
It is possible this was his 4 year old daughter - if so I disagree with you. I think the notion of combat vs non combat and selected roles for women is both beyond developmental understanding and also not relevant to what she was asking. Effectively she wanted to know whether girls could fly spitfires - and the answer is yes they could and yes they did.
I doubt whether a four year old would ask why all the people ‘rampaging’ in the photos are men to start with. I think we can safely assume that the older child asked. But even if it was the younger one, a four year old gets then/now.
-
I doubt whether a four year old would ask why all the people ‘rampaging’ in the photos are men to start with. I think we can safely assume that the older child asked. But even if it was the younger one, a four year old gets then/now.
All we know from the podcast is that his daughter (whichever one it was) went down a series of pictures of spitfire pilots and went 'boy','boy','boy','boy' - Dan Snow's response was to show her some pictures of women spitfire pilots and said, there were women who flew spitfires too. To my mind there is no lying anywhere in that scenario - Snow was correct to point out that there were also some women who flew spitfires in response to his daughter's comment that all the pilots she saw in the pictures were men.
Clearly Snow recognises that there are elements of the story which he has missed out in his response, but I don't think that means he was lying. And when he talks about it he doesn't say 'I lied', but the more nuanced that he 'sort of lied', which I think is a recognition that he was guilty of omission rather than overtly saying something that wasn't true.