Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

[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.

[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/Social Research MethodsCropped.zip

[Who needs to find any papers?]

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

[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.

[Really? .... you go try and have an innocuous 'relationship', with an
'unknown' child, tomorrow. See how far you get.
You might not get very far due to people's fears, but you certainly
won't be thrown in jail.]

Try it, please.

[ 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.

[AsI've said before, paedophiles are dangerous because they have that
motive, and they are regularly able to bring a great deal of pressure
and persuasion to bear on a child.]

Irrelevant (and incorrect, of course, for paedophiles), no one is
prosecuted for 'motive', for anything.

[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?

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.

[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?

[You are joking? I make sure I rarely, if ever, come into contact with
or even talk to minors.
That's probably in everyone's best interest.]

Well, it certainly is in mine, presently. Why do suggest it is for
anyone else?

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?).

WM
.

Quantcast