Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

[Yes it is, because I have not yet lied once.
You misunderstand the words you use.]

How wude.

[It is not a "straw man" to
question your implicit credibility]

I have not lied. You provide a scenario which is about lying, and
apply it to me, so as to question my credibility. You have set up a
straw man.
..
[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.]

No, your straw man proposed I was a liar. Of course I *may* be
incorrect, I have never claimed truth, but all the evidence suggests,
that I approach the truth, on this topic, more than anyone else.

[ 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]

Absolutely not, of course it is abusive, to some, because 'abuse' has
simply become a moral position about what someone find unacceptable.

I am abused by the legal and judicial system.

[or harmful, ]

No, non-consensually, seriously harmful. Serious harm by *any* such
activity is unacceptable.

[or would not be abusive or harmful if socially permitted.]

That is what the evidence tells me, yes.

[Those are your claims, ]

See above.

[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?]

No I expect (would like) you to research it thoroughly and adsorb it,
apply logic and the scientific method and come to a rational
conclusion.

You may be able to, I appreciate it is a rarity for most people.

What response have I missed? Please remind me and I will respond.

[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.]

It does not make it true ... this is what secondary 'readers' will
claim, with gay abandon..

Social context has no bearing on the scientific method - it is
sacrosanct.

Their interpretations are evidentially biased.

If they do not want to do science, they can study psychiatry,
psychology, sociology or something.

[You are
advocating a somewhat fundamental social change,]

Am I? Hardly.

I am rationalising the norm, through history, the present and the near
future.

[and your criticisms
can be quite accurately summed up as saying "this evidence is social
context dependent".]

No, much more than that. I have the science, history and the present
on my 'side'.

“The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It
may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It
may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our
preferences do not determine what’s true. We have a method, and that
method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic
approaches to the truth — never there, just closer and closer, always
finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities. Cleverly
designed experiments are the key.” - Carl Sagan, “Wonder and
Skepticism”

[But of course, if one advocates fundamental social
change, ]

Which I am not.

[then one's arguments become practically unfalsifiable anyway -
almost anything would be psychologically and socially acceptable given
a social context to match it.]

Yes, like the Final Solution. Which has many parallels with this
topic.

[This tosh is what our laws are created upon.
Not if you approach the matter by trying to preserve the status quo.]

It is not the status quo ...your position is only a recent (and
already faltering) blip, and certainly not held, by as as many as you
would like to believe.

[Paedophiles have a poor fit with the existing social system;]

Not sure what you mean by 'paedophiles', here. MAAs are totally
consistent with the existing social system

[the real
question]

Your question.

[is whether we change the social system to suit paedophiles
(which will potentially throw up a poor social fit with other
groups),]

Again, until you clarify your terminology, your comments mean very
little.

[or just try to eliminate paedophiles.]

Ditto, do you really mean 'eliminate paedophiles' or 'eliminate MAAs'?

[Like I've said, the problem for paedophiles is that they have no
shared interest with any sizable proportion of the population]

See above.

[ - in
fact the majority currently perceive a diametrical opposition of
interests - and so they just have no power to enforce changes in their
favour.]

See above.

[ 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.]

Progress can be very slow, for some .... impossible for many.

[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]

Most? Really?

[Within
quite broad bounds you can make people like anything. ]

Incorrect.

[The question is
whose interests are really served by that process.]

We have covered this.

[I think children's
interests are better served by locking paedophiles away,]

Although you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary, or that the
actual contrary may be the case ... that it would be beneficial, both
to the minor, now adult, or society as a whole.

You 'think' is fine.

[than by
forcing them to acquire a taste for ejaculate]

(1) Who mentioned force?
(2) See 'medicine goes down',
(3) An acquired taste can be wonderful, once the barriers are
overcome, for all involved.

[ - and I must admit the
mental imagery here is becoming quite horrific for me as I'm sure it
is for many others.]

That is because you have a false conceptualisation of what happens, in
most cases, or what is being suggested. This is your dogma in control.

[ 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.]

Not yet, but it is not even an issue.

[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.]

Infer? Are sure that is the correct word you wish to use?

It does not just say 'penetration'.

The simple fact is, something is 'sexual' if the jury/judge says it
is.

That is madness. I am Napoleon, because I say I am.

[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.]

I am sure you do, you do not apply logic, when it does not suit you;
this is widespread.

[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.]

For now, yes.

[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.]

Noted, TY.

[Still,
the SOR may function most effectively as a general deterrent, rather
than as a means of incapacitation.]

Ah yes, that was one of its 'positives', in 95/96/97. What has
happened to 'sexual' offending since that time? Would you like the
figures?

The 'SOR' stops little or no 'sexual offending' (how could it?). In
fact, it could now be argued, that it leads to more 'sexual offending'
and more of many other crimes, as well..

I have committed and been 'prosecuted' for at least two crimes (which
I would not have committed) had I not had to 'register'

[ 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.]

I disagree.

[Do think it is a healthy or civilised position?
The argument can be made that it is a justified state of affairs.]

I should be delighted for you to provide the justification.

[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!]

I cannot possibly see what you mean !!!

WM
.

Relevant Pages

  • Make that a MULTI-Monumental Hoax...
    ... to a greatly disturbing scientific truth and a monumental ... new evidence -- is summed up so very well by author Ian Taylor ... longtime professor of anthropology at Harvard ... Here are just a few of the thousands upon thousands of specimens ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Monumental Hoax...
    ... to a greatly disturbing scientific truth and a monumental ... new evidence -- is summed up so very well by author Ian Taylor ... longtime professor of anthropology at Harvard ... Here are just a few of the thousands upon thousands of specimens ...
    (sci.med)
  • Monumental Hoax
    ... to a greatly disturbing scientific truth and a monumental ... new evidence -- is summed up so very well by author Ian Taylor ... longtime professor of anthropology at Harvard ... Here are just a few of the thousands upon thousands of specimens ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Make that a MULTI-Monumental Hoax...
    ... to a greatly disturbing scientific truth and a monumental ... new evidence -- is summed up so very well by author Ian Taylor ... longtime professor of anthropology at Harvard ... Here are just a few of the thousands upon thousands of specimens ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Monumental Hoax
    ... to a greatly disturbing scientific truth and a monumental ... new evidence -- is summed up so very well by author Ian Taylor ... longtime professor of anthropology at Harvard ... Here are just a few of the thousands upon thousands of specimens ...
    (sci.geo.geology)