Ady Sheerer Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 A witty and interesting approach to spanking. What would it look like if we were to apply these "moral" principles universally? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmKHpyo8j1Y 11
prolix Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Stefan did it first. But these guys did it better... 1
dsayers Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 lmao @ "My daddy spanked my mommy and she's fine." This was really good. I especially liked the woman's progression from marginalization to appearing genuinely cornered and frightened. It's sad that the people who need this the most won't have the empathy to pick up on it. 1
Dermot Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Great video.Role play video's would be really useful for all types of scenario's. Thanks 1
QueechoFeecho Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Most people I've encountered on the other side of the spanking issue have a reason why spanking / corporal punishment and its applicability is different for each of the following kinds of people: a) young children (1-2.5) b) children (2.5-5) c) adults, non-spouse d) spouse e) an elderly person So I think the universality needs to be able to be proven otherwise you'll get stuck in that quagmire.
powder Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Most people I've encountered on the other side of the spanking issue have a reason why spanking / corporal punishment and its applicability is different for each of the following kinds of people: a) young children (1-2.5) b) children (2.5-5) c) adults, non-spouse d) spouse e) an elderly person So I think the universality needs to be able to be proven otherwise you'll get stuck in that quagmire. the NAP is already universal, so there is no quagmire to get stuck in, and it is not OK to hit any of the people in those different categories.
MysterionMuffles Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 this has got to be the best video yet because it's funny, well acted, and the arguments are much easier to take in. If anyone still can't get it after this or at least consider changes, then I don't know what will. Til then, keep innovating, interwebz! 1
QueechoFeecho Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 the NAP is already universal, so there is no quagmire to get stuck in, and it is not OK to hit any of the people in those different categories. If I understand things right, NAP is compatible with UPB. That doesn't mean it is proven as "true".
dsayers Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 What proof do you require? You have self-ownership as the result of your capacity for reason. People are not fundamentally different in a way that they wouldn't own themselves. This is axiomatic. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This is all "NAP" means. Is there any part that you do not accept as true? 1
Recommended Posts