Nicole Arbour: Why You NEED To Spank Your Kids

[MysterionMuffles]

 

Such great wisdom backed up with irrefutable facts.   [/sarcasm]

 

This is sophistry on overdrive.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The notion that the young generation has not been spanked is very common. 

[kavih]

I remember once watching a video of hers about Feminism (I think), which I enjoyed. I thought she would have been a more reasoned person in her videos. Now I see that she is not. Thanks for sharing.

The notion that the young generation has not been spanked is very common. 

I don't know where the concept of the younger generation not being spanked is coming from. The research shows there hasn't been much change at all (from reading Primordial Violence).

[MysterionMuffles]

I remember once watching a video of hers about Feminism (I think), which I enjoyed. I thought she would have been a more reasoned person in her videos. Now I see that she is not. Thanks for sharing.

 

There was also some controversy about how she abused her ex-boyfriend.

 

The fact that she makes fun of "my abuse story" videos in her pro-spanking one gives me reason to think she did that as a slight towards him.

[Mister Mister]

  I would love for Stef to do a rebuttal.  She has 321k subscribers and this video already has 170k views.

[Wuzzums]

I think you guys are taking this too seriously. She's a comedian, she says shocking things not because of personal opinion but to get a reaction. Sometimes the two coincide, sure, but it's hard to say when that's the case.

[owlis]

I'd love to think we're taking it too seriously. But her young female fans will be taking it as gospel, so i'd rather put that label on them. For Stef to make a rebuttal would be such a good idea, in my opinion. Let's get that ball rolling if we can. 

[dsayers]

I think you guys are taking this too seriously. She's a comedian, she says shocking things not because of personal opinion but to get a reaction. Sometimes the two coincide, sure, but it's hard to say when that's the case.

That's true. But if people who know better can mistake it for serious, then people who don't know better can also. If the video was called "why you should rape," then I would agree with you. Because we live in a society that accepts that rape is immoral. This isn't the same for assaulting defenseless, dependent, not there by choice children.

[MysterionMuffles]

I think you guys are taking this too seriously. She's a comedian, she says shocking things not because of personal opinion but to get a reaction. Sometimes the two coincide, sure, but it's hard to say when that's the case.

 

judging by how she reacted to her exboyfriend's abuse story, I'm pretty sure she's serious about condoning it

[Wuzzums]

judging by how she reacted to her exboyfriend's abuse story, I'm pretty sure she's serious about condoning it

 

Oh gosh, I saw that guy's video. When someone pulls the victim card in front of strangers (millions of strangers in his case) my empathy circuitry shuts down and I suddenly become very suspicious and mildly amused.

 

 

I'd love to think we're taking it too seriously. But her young female fans will be taking it as gospel, so i'd rather put that label on them. For Stef to make a rebuttal would be such a good idea, in my opinion. Let's get that ball rolling if we can. 

 

But is this a door that should be opened? Serious philosopher debates character comedian on YouTube?

[Mister Mister]

Oh gosh, I saw that guy's video. When someone pulls the victim card in front of strangers (millions of strangers in his case) my empathy circuitry shuts down and I suddenly become very suspicious and mildly amused.

 

 

I actually agree.  If you follow it, it seems as if they had a brief sexual relationship, and once she punched him in the chest when he was drunk and disorderly.  Obviously not the greatest behavior, but all things considered, his video was incredibly hysterical and ridiculous in my opinion, and most likely some sort of revenge/attention-seeking.  Of course I wanted to believe it at first, being familiar with the reality of female on male violence, but we shouldn't ignore facts and instincts just to support a narrative, otherwise we're just like the bad guys.

[BD91]

On the bright side,

 

more than a 2:1 dislike to like ratio. And not a single word of praise in the comments.

[Livemike]

Yeah I gave up after "All the scientists who are saying spanking fucks you up were spanked, and presumably they're of right mind enough to be scientists"
A)  We don't know what proportion of scientists investigating spanking were spanked, we can't even GUESS that number.
B)  Being a scientist does not require you to be in top mental health shape.  
C)  Even if it did that would not mean that spanking wasn't bad, it would just mean it wasn't so bad it's impossible to be a scientists after it.  Which we already knew.  

One sentence 3 logical fallacies.  

[Rlclauer73]

This is one of the main problems: people who hold to these notions like "spanking is good or necessary," have no logical reasons for that position, and lack the basic integrity to question their own position in the matter. This intellectual dishonesty coupled with brazen self righteousness, packaged as "truth" is disgusting!

[regevdl]

I think you guys are taking this too seriously. She's a comedian, she says shocking things not because of personal opinion but to get a reaction. Sometimes the two coincide, sure, but it's hard to say when that's the case.

The only problem is there is too much 'comedy' on serious issues.  how many shows like the Daily Show and such that lure in the young, impressionable minds...probably already in indocrination camps referred to as public schooling and make 'news' entertaining but with a twist.  And then when you interact with them in a rational, critical thinking tone they get all 'bored'.  I had someone actually defend John Oliver as factual news and when someone made a few bullet points debunking they mocked the person as being 'boring' and 'un entertaining' at presenting facts and a hack and such.  I was dumbstruck.  Unless it's spoonfed as entertainment and toeing the line of truth/conjecture...the kids are interseted or inspired and the flashier, sexier and funnier it is, the harder it is to give them the information in a more realistic, raw data, serious way to get them motivated enough to actually give a ****.  When it's funny they become apathetic after the endorphine hit of laughter.  

 

So sorry....just because we don't want to call this comedy is not our shortcoming...it's hers for using her sex appeal and 'comedy'  and popularity to talk about this in a failed comedic way.  Why not get serious for a moment to get the message across. 

 

it's like a tactic I told my son.  He sometimes gets in these bouts of using sarcasm with his younger sister who han'st really gotten the concept of sarcasm.  She still takes things literal and I encourage that!  

 

So I told my son you can't joke with her all the time and then suddenly be serious and be surprised when she doesn't take you seriously.  it's better to be serious most of the time and then if you aren't serious be a bit more obvious so she'll notice the difference.  It will catch her attention more. 

 

So if she usually does comedy and has conditioned her audience to expect comedy and cynicism then ONE video where she is stone cold serious could do FAR more good but this will only feed into people's confirmation bias with her ambigiuty and frankly the media airwaves are oversaturated with ambiguity and cynicism and sarcasm and no wonder why people freak out when someone speaks about these issues in a dead serious tone.

[regevdl]

On the bright side,

 

more than a 2:1 dislike to like ratio. And not a single word of praise in the comments.

there are a few and I pushed back on them.... lol    Come join me will you? :-P

Yeah I gave up after "All the scientists who are saying spanking fucks you up were spanked, and presumably they're of right mind enough to be scientists"

A)  We don't know what proportion of scientists investigating spanking were spanked, we can't even GUESS that number.

B)  Being a scientist does not require you to be in top mental health shape.  

C)  Even if it did that would not mean that spanking wasn't bad, it would just mean it wasn't so bad it's impossible to be a scientists after it.  Which we already knew.  

One sentence 3 logical fallacies.  

well and if she wants to mention scientists who were spanked how about the 99.99% of prison inmate who were spanked and/or worse....  convenciently left out of the framework.

[Molly]

Yuck.  I have the "balls" to NOT hit my kid.  It is WAY harder to resist that urge than doing so.  With a toddler, all day... let me tell you there are plenty of times I am tested and it takes tremendous willpower.  Tell me how it's weakness to have some self control. 

[twinklingwinter]

But is this a door that should be opened? Serious philosopher debates character comedian on YouTube?

 

He already did:

 

[ValueOfBrevity]

The only problem is there is too much 'comedy' on serious issues.  how many shows like the Daily Show and such that lure in the young, impressionable minds...probably already in indocrination camps referred to as public schooling and make 'news' entertaining but with a twist. 

@6:56 John Stewart used this fallacy a long time ago. 

 

"What you're doing is theater, when you should be doing debate. Which would be great but it's not honest. It's not honest! What you do is bipartisan hackery. And I'll tell you why I know it-"

 

"You have John Kerry on your show, and you sniff his throne, and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?"

 

"You're on CNN! The  show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls!"

 

 

 

Stewart had a huge viewer-base. Why didn't he do these non-partisan debates? Why didn't Colbert?

Instead, they spent the majority of their episodes exploring the same things: trivialities and sensationalism.

Now, what does John Oliver talk about? See above.                                                         

 

[dsayers]

@ValueOfBrevity: That's called backpedaling. The Daily Show definitely weighed in on the State and such. Then, if it was pointed out, hid behind "it's just comedy." It would be like talking while trying to claim you're not responsible for what you say. That's not what the word "comedy" does or even could mean.

[DCLugi]

When I present the moral argument against hitting kids I'm met with, "It's like tackling someone to save them from getting run down. You have to use force to benefit their future." Now a mountain of evidence might say otherwise but with this stance the moral argument loses ground. Unfortunately this applies to taxes and war as well. 

[dsayers]

When I present the moral argument against hitting kids I'm met with, "It's like tackling someone to save them from getting run down. You have to use force to benefit their future." Now a mountain of evidence might say otherwise but with this stance the moral argument loses ground.

No it doesn't. The dissenter is poisoning the well with the word benefit. Tackling somebody who is about to be run down is moral because there's an expectation of consent. That is, f the person could consent, it is reasonable to expect that they would. It is not reasonable to expect that a defenseless, dependent, not there by choice child would consent to being assaulted by their caregiver. The dissenting claim also supposes that violence is the only way to accomplish X, Y, or Z. But the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence itself. It is intellectual sloth and a parent trying to cover their own prior failures to resort to the claim that it benefits the child to assault them.

[DCLugi]

No it doesn't. The dissenter is poisoning the well with the word benefit. Tackling somebody who is about to be run down is moral because there's an expectation of consent. That is, f the person could consent, it is reasonable to expect that they would. It is not reasonable to expect that a defenseless, dependent, not there by choice child would consent to being assaulted by their caregiver. The dissenting claim also supposes that violence is the only way to accomplish X, Y, or Z. But the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence itself. It is intellectual sloth and a parent trying to cover their own prior failures to resort to the claim that it benefits the child to assault them.

I agree but the comeback is "I would have consented if I'd known that it would benefit me in the future." Many victims of spanking claim they are better people for it.

[dsayers]

I agree but the comeback is "I would have consented if I'd known that it would benefit me in the future." Many victims of spanking claim they are better people for it.

Which is precisely why I went on to point out the only thing that can be accomplished only by way of violence and the ways in which it is lazy to not pursue them.

 

To give this post its own merit, I would also point out that this would be allowing them to favor utility (subjective) over morality (objective).

[regevdl]

@6:56 John Stewart used this fallacy a long time ago. 

 

"What you're doing is theater, when you should be doing debate. Which would be great but it's not honest. It's not honest! What you do is bipartisan hackery. And I'll tell you why I know it-"

 

"You have John Kerry on your show, and you sniff his throne, and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?"

 

"You're on CNN! The  show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls!"

 

 

 

Stewart had a huge viewer-base. Why didn't he do these non-partisan debates? Why didn't Colbert?

Instead, they spent the majority of their episodes exploring the same things: trivialities and sensationalism.

Now, what does John Oliver talk about? See above.                                                         

 

It is interesting an subtle sophistry he uses in that he does correctly and justifiably push back on media.  So tear down media and replace with what..... 'theater and humor'?  That is where Stewart fails..he cashes in on comedy but claims 'he would love to see debates' ...and you asked the perfect question.  so why didn't he do a debate show and all of his clones that got their start on his show, Colbert, Oliver etc could have easily followed suit and also done debate shows. 

 

So he deflects his own responsibility as he calls out media.  That was very revealing.  Thanks for sharing btw.

[Troubador]

Hitting a child is not like tackling someone out of the way of an oncoming car. Key differences:

• Tackling to save from being run over the object is to avoid injury not cause pain. Pain sustained is incidental and not a requisite to saving someone.

• It is a certainty that you can avoid serious injury/death from tackling out of the way of a car. No such certainties exist for hitting children. Someone says this invite them to talk through the steps of what harm is being avoided.

 

The youtuber who posted this is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

[chrisdjmorgan]

On the current generation of kids being raised as arsholes "because they were never spanked"...

My rebuttal is usually that (speaking of society in general) as we remove the archaic negative things like spanking we aren't replacing it with a better alternative (like common sense).

It's like the argument against anarchy: if you remove the government but don't replace it with wonderful alternatives, you're going to have chaos and violence, and people who want better lives will run back to statism. But that doesn't mean that anarchy is the cause of chaos and violence.


Also, it is true that centuries of statism has produced a much better society than we once had. Centuries of spanking prevented people from committing suicide by free speech.
Centuries of anarchy would have gotten us much further with less bloodshed. Same goes for peaceful parenting.

My Mum always told me she that she doesn't want to punish me, but if she doesn't I won't learn to live well in society. There are a lot of rules you must follow in "the real world" or you will be punished. Totally true, Mum, how 'bout we change that.

[dsayers]

It's like the argument against anarchy: if you remove the government but don't replace it with wonderful alternatives, you're going to have chaos and violence, and people who want better lives will run back to statism.

It runs deeper than that. It's not the lack of alternative because alternatives aren't required. For example, how do you and I have cellphones? I did nothing to achieve this and you probably didn't either. Yet people did research, developed technology, manufactured, and distributed the things because people have desires and it's profitable to satisfy human desires.

 

The reason why we MIGHT return to a State if it could be blinked out right now is because of upbringing. People are taught through traumatic childhoods that might makes right, that institutionalized theft, assault, rape, and murder are not only righteous, but noble, and that by making use of that big gun, nobody is responsible for any of their evil by proxy deeds or responsible for their own self-sufficiency.

 

Does that make sense?

[Crallask]

As for people saying it's humor.

I feel very mixed on it regardless.

 

Sure, you can make jokes about spanking but in a society where it's this prevalent I fear it may do more harm than good. 

 

Imagine how absurd it would be to make jokes about glorifying rape as being to the benefit of women as a whole. It would be so outlandish that of course it's pure satire.

 

Now tell those jokes to North Africans who, as Stef has espoused, apparently rape at a rate of 33%.

 

That changes the dynamics of the "humor" entirely.

[chrisdjmorgan]

It runs deeper than that. It's not the lack of alternative because alternatives aren't required. For example, how do you and I have cellphones? I did nothing to achieve this and you probably didn't either. Yet people did research, developed technology, manufactured, and distributed the things because people have desires and it's profitable to satisfy human desires.

 

The reason why we MIGHT return to a State if it could be blinked out right now is because of upbringing. People are taught through traumatic childhoods that might makes right, that institutionalized theft, assault, rape, and murder are not only righteous, but noble, and that by making use of that big gun, nobody is responsible for any of their evil by proxy deeds or responsible for their own self-sufficiency.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Yes, that makes sense. That's kinda what I meant by replacing the old paradigm with something better. We don't need to replace the state with capitalism etc, we need to replace current parenting (and thus worldviews and emphasis on reason) with self-knowledge at the very least. Once that happens all other problems can be tackled as per demand.

 

We don't need an alternative to state power, or an alternative to spanking, we just need to be nicer to ourselves and to each other (for me being nicer to each other is the end game, but that makes me sound like I belong in a drum circle). That comes primarily from self-knowledge and passing that onto children.

[dsayers]

We don't need an alternative to state power, or an alternative to spanking, we just need to be nicer to ourselves and to each other (for me being nicer to each other is the end game, but that makes me sound like I belong in a drum circle).

I lol'ed. Because when I first started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, I felt somewhat like a hippie too.

 

For me, self-knowledge and self-care (being nicer to myself) effected how I treated others. I was more firm with evil people and more caring and tender towards caring people. Then when I found virtuous love and my inner-child was taught how to trust and love, I've never been more gentle. I wonder if this directly follows given that we already know that in order to assault a child, a parent must dissociate first.

[chrisdjmorgan]

As for people saying it's humor.

I feel very mixed on it regardless.

 

Sure, you can make jokes about spanking but in a society where it's this prevalent I fear it may do more harm than good. 

 

Imagine how absurd it would be to make jokes about glorifying rape as being to the benefit of women as a whole. It would be so outlandish that of course it's pure satire.

 

Now tell those jokes to North Africans who, as Stef has espoused, apparently rape at a rate of 33%.

 

That changes the dynamics of the "humor" entirely.

I think it's fine to joke about things that would be received badly or have a negative effect in a particular group, so long as that's not the intention. Stef in particular makes a lot of jokes that seriously offend people, but it's ok within the voluntarist/ancap group, and necessary for it to be entertaining and not totally depressing. Common sense is required

 

 

I lol'ed. Because when I first started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, I felt somewhat like a hippie too.

 

For me, self-knowledge and self-care (being nicer to myself) effected how I treated others. I was more firm with evil people and more caring and tender towards caring people. Then when I found virtuous love and my inner-child was taught how to trust and love, I've never been more gentle. I wonder if this directly follows given that we already know that in order to assault a child, a parent must dissociate first.

That's the number one "rebuttal" when I talk to people about peaceful parenting or voluntarism. "The world is a nasty place, children need to learn to survive".  I don't get it, I do what I do BECAUSE the world is a nasty place, but I don't think it has to be.

[dsayers]

That's the number one "rebuttal" when I talk to people about peaceful parenting or voluntarism. "The world is a nasty place, children need to learn to survive".  I don't get it, I do what I do BECAUSE the world is a nasty place, but I don't think it has to be.

Yep. I refer to this as problem -> end as opposed to problem -> solution. So many people think that the way things are are the way they have to be or always will be. NOT teaching children the language of aggression means they will recoil from those who do. Making it less safe/easy for those who do to maneuver among us. So even if the peacefully raised child does nothing actively to reduce aggression in the world, their very disposition passively will.