Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

On 3 June, 01:23, Webmanager_CritEst <webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[Of course I have it, why would I be making such bold claims? I> started, earlier in this thread, illustrating the spin.

Because I belive Stalin said, people are more willing to believe big
lies than small ones.]

I am fatiguing of your straw man rhetoric, my friend.

That's not a straw man. Your logic goes that 'you would not make these
claims if they were not true', but of course one cannot discern from
that statement alone whether your claims are true, or whether you are
mistaken or whether you are a liar, because all three categories of
people would say the same thing.


[You did read the critique I made of the Shapiro 2004 paper, I posted> here, as a start? ... you want me to provide a detailed analysis, with
sources? .. it is about time I did make a video on it.

No, I'm not aware of Shapiro 2004.]

Sorry, Shapiro was another paper I had in mind, Spataro,  ...

http://www.critest.com/documents/SocialResearch MethodsCropped.zip

That paper strikes me as a bit rambling, but I'll give you credit that
these are hardly issues that can be dealt with properly in 2000 words.
Still, it makes an argument that I've heard before and which I'm
already familiar with, and which does not cause any change in my point
of view. Perhaps partly it's because I already accept that paedophilia
is not some kind of absolute moral sin which has been forbidden since
man came down from the trees, whereas obviously some people do think
that.



[Who needs to find any papers?]

Well, you do now, actually, if you wish to remain credible.

I think I already retain a fair amount of credibility here, and I
don't really need to pander to your demands.

That said, I've previously made my statement on the matter of evidence
and why reference to it would not help resolve this issue in any way.
But for your benefit, I'll say it once again: I'm *not* aware of *any*
conclusive evidence in respect of which you cannot simply say
"correlation does not indicate causation" or "that research does not
control for social context", and I dare accept that both of those
criticisms would be *perfectly valid*.


[One only need turn on the television to
find victims of past abuse talking about the unpleasant nature of
their (enforced) experiences.]

I can see a lot of things on TV, it does not make them true. In fact,
I have found it to be the opposite, much of the time.

Ah touche. Still, I have no reason overall to disbelieve those who
they have been victims of child sexual abuse, and who say they found
the experience thoroughly unpleasant.


[ There are laws, of course; abduction for example. Also, if a jury> perceives ***any*** act with a minor (or an adult, for that matter) as
being 'sexual', then it is a sexual offence, such as stroking their
hair or arm. There need not be any ***sexual*** act at all.

Because you're defining sex simply as an act, rather than a motive.]

Absolutely. The offences I speak of do not mention any motive
requirement. They are sexual offences in their own right.

At the end of the day, a "sexual act" is broadly equivalent to "an act
with a sexual motive".



[It is illegal for me to have a relationship with a minor, in an> educational etc etc setting, although I have never been assessed as,
or been accused of, being a risk to a minor.

Presumably the risk is implied from your convictions.]

By whom?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a correlation between being
convicted of a sex offence and a higher risk of committing further
sexual offences.



If I have ever had any risk (never evidenced, of course), it one of re-
offending, and that is the lowest it can be for anyone.

It is a populist facade, for people, such as you, to maintain their
dogma and false sense of security.

I wouldn't say I'm dogmatic about the issue at all, and I would also
say my views on the matter are far from populist.


[When someone has been accused (still innocent) of carrying out an> offence on a minor, it is made illegal to come into contact with any
minor.

Again, due to the risk.]

There is no risk and never has been. I have been assessed as the
lowest risk anyone can be, have you?

I assume you mean the lowest risk for a person categorised as a sex
offender? As such I haven't been assessed for risk.


Do you think that this is a healthy or civilised position for anyone
to be in, bearing in mind, I am the safest anyone can be (not to
mention the loss of my talents, skills and knowledge to society?).

And you call me dogmatic?
.