> Are you referring to the paintings behind glass that weren't affected at all?
You mean other than being unavailable while they were being cleaned/checked for damage?
Some visitors likely traveled thousands of miles, possibly on a once in a lifetime trip, to see the paintings, which they weren't able to do thanks to a toddler-grade temper tantrum.
That's a strange definition of "not affected at all" you have there.
Try to respond honestly (and without sarcasm, petty insults, and other common internet-shitposting-style content) - the parent said the paintings were not affected at all, and they ostensibly were not, according the parent. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a bad thing to do or didn't have real consequences. And regardless, the parent is speaking in the context of whether corporal punishment is justified, which obviously it is not (speaking in the usually-implicit context of morality/civilization). That's the topic of this thread.
Trying to excuse this childish temper tantrum and exculpate the infantile perpetrators with "herp, derp, the paintings weren't damaged at all" is what was dishonest.
You mean other than being unavailable while they were being cleaned/checked for damage?
Some visitors likely traveled thousands of miles, possibly on a once in a lifetime trip, to see the paintings, which they weren't able to do thanks to a toddler-grade temper tantrum.
That's a strange definition of "not affected at all" you have there.