Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

On 3 June, 10:40, 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 one
I am fatiguing of your straw man rhetoric, my friend.]

[That's not a straw man.]

Yes it is, because I have not yet lied once.

You misunderstand the words you use. It is not a "straw man" to
question your implicit credibility.


[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 can know, for sure, they are not lies, because I said them. This
is not about logic, it is about my evidenced integrity and honesty.

And that is one thing that is at issue. Of course I'm not saying
you're a liar, I'm saying you may be mistaken.


Anyways, I said ....

"Of course I have it, why would I be making such bold claims?"

I did not claim truth.

You can be sure they are the nearest thing to the truth, because I
said them. I cannot deal in anything else, except in the most severe
cases.

You have contended that child sexual conduct is not abusive or
harmful, or would not be abusive or harmful if socially permitted.
Those are your claims, but you have made no response to the criticisms
already made by me and Todal, and as such the the issue remains at
large; I mean, honestly, you don't expect us to just take your word
for it, do you?



[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.]

That paper is not about morality. It concerns the 'low quality' (and I
am, being kind) interpretations, which take place, based on barely
significant stats.

They are legitimate interpretations within the social context. You are
advocating a somewhat fundamental social change, and your criticisms
can be quite accurately summed up as saying "this evidence is social
context dependent". But of course, if one advocates fundamental social
change, then one's arguments become practically unfalsifiable anyway -
almost anything would be psychologically and socially acceptable given
a social context to match it.



I could write the same (and much 'worse') on any related paper.

This tosh is what our laws are created upon.

Not if you approach the matter by trying to preserve the status quo.
Paedophiles have a poor fit with the existing social system; the real
question is whether we change the social system to suit paedophiles
(which will potentially throw up a poor social fit with other groups),
or just try to eliminate paedophiles.

Like I've said, the problem for paedophiles is that they have no
shared interest with any sizable proportion of the population - in
fact the majority currently perceive a diametrical opposition of
interests - and so they just have no power to enforce changes in their
favour.


[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*.]

Thank you.

I suppose this helps your case with the observing crowd, if not with
me.


[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.]

Who suggested that being 'unpleasant' was the issue? I doubt very few
people enjoyed their first taste of ejaculate.

Most people don't like false imprisonment or torture, but after a
while they often come to love their jailers and tormentors. Within
quite broad bounds you can make people like anything. The question is
whose interests are really served by that process. I think children's
interests are better served by locking paedophiles away, than by
forcing them to acquire a taste for ejaculate - and I must admit the
mental imagery here is becoming quite horrific for me as I'm sure it
is for many others.



[ 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".]

*****

Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.78

"Sexual"

20-17 78. For the purposes of this Part (except section 71),
penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable
person would consider that -

(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to
it, it is because of its nature sexual, or

(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its
circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both)
it is sexual.

Archbold's Criminal Pleading - 2005 Edition, p. 1850.

*****

i.e. motive need not be real, just a circumstance/purpose which may be
perceived. As usual, totally subjective, in the actual (i.e. non-
legal) sense of the word.

Because it is impossible to measure "motive" with scientific
equipment. It must be inferred from the act. In para (a) a sexual
motive is necessarily inferred from "acts that are by their nature
sexual", such as penetration. Para (b) covers situations where the act
itself is ambiguous, but where an inference can be drawn from the
wider circumstances.



Of course, this is circular reasoning, the last bastion of the
fool ... but, such are laws and lawmakers.

I find these concepts relatively straightforward, and not circular at
all.



[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.]

Not for any *individual* (even if what you say was correct, for such a
new offence, from the whole dataset).

No, in aggregate obviously. It would be impossible to measure
otherwise.


There is no published correlation between my offence and any other
sexual offending. What we do have (and what is now emerging) leads the
reader to the opposite conclusion.

So many people now appear to be done for trivial possession that I
wouldn't be surprised if there was no significant correlation. Still,
the SOR may function most effectively as a general deterrent, rather
than as a means of incapacitation.



This is where people are confused about risk assessment. One cannot
say, because an individual has done something, that they will do it
again (or anything vaguely related to it, or not related to it). All
that can be said, at best, is in the given dataset, x% may do it
again, based on previous cohorts; this is no measure of any given
individual.

Indeed.


That is why 'bad character' SHOULD NOT be allowed in courts, until
after the verdict.

Past conduct is not necessarily a guide to the future, for otherwise
the trying of those with past convictions would be a formality. But
still, past conduct is a risk factor, and there are many situations
where it would be systematically absurd not to introduce relevant
evidence of bad character.



[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? ]

Do think it is a healthy or civilised position?

The argument can be made that it is a justified state of affairs.


Do you think I do not have a spectacular work and social history, up
until 2002 (and since, in real terms)?

No, I accept you appear to have a number of socially desirable
attributes, to say nothing of the undesirable ones!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... [It is not a "straw man" to ... that I approach the truth, on this topic, more than anyone else. ... That is what the evidence tells me, ... Not sure what you mean by 'paedophiles', ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Kilmarnock sex offender in trouble over bank account
    ... believe, based on all the evidence, that my position, on all things, ... This is hardly the forum for a legalistic definition of harm. ... One point of difficulty, for example, is that our society lacks ... You do not mean Paedophiles. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... This particular track of discussion started when you demanded evidence ... Social context has no bearing on the scientific method - it is ... Not sure what you mean by 'paedophiles', ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Virtual sex with virtual children
    ... Online paedophiles are cruising a virtual world to act out their ... sexual fantasies with young children. ... Farrell created his own character in the multiplayer online virtual ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Handwritten letters
    ... Protection Act and a police and criminal evidence act. ... AFAIK there is no legal reason why ... involved with the interception. ...
    (alt.usage.english)