Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

On 4 June, 03:14, Webmanager_CritEst <webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[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.

This particular track of discussion started when you demanded evidence
from me to support my statements. I questioned whether that would be
productive given the criticisms of the available evidence you've made
previously - although you actually seem to forget that we've discussed
this subject extensively on previous occasions. I also pointed out
that you accordingly lack any evidence to positively prove many of
your own claims. You replied that you would not make any claims that
you could not support with evidence. I replied that Stalin once said
if you're going to lie, make it a big one, because people are more
likely to believe it - and the logic behind that is that small lies
can be easily tested against reality, while big lies are generally
more complex and harder to test.

Now, we can argue about whether you are misleading intentionally or
not, but the bottom line is I think your argument would only have
force with ordinary people because the arguments you make are very
complex, and most people would not have the rational understanding of
the subject to be able to rebut your arguments.

That said, I found it laughable that you'd expect people to take you
on trust, because even if you are honest, you may still be mistaken,
and people are hardly likely to take a paedophile on trust when he
advocates on as contentious an issue as sex with children. Especially
because interests are notorious for affecting judgment, if not
corrupting the heart.



[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,

The only mention of liar I believe I made was in relation to Stalin.
Stalin also had a lot of followers and a lot of supporters; it doesn't
mean they were all as calculating as Stalin - most, I imagine, were
simply mistaken about where it was all leading.


but all the evidence suggests,
that I approach the truth, on this topic, more than anyone else.

You certainly possess a more nuanced analysis of the topic than most
people, but one cannot be as kind in respect of your social
prescriptions.



[ 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.

Touche.


[or harmful, ]

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

Which is a 'moral position about what some find unacceptable', I
presume?


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

That is what the evidence tells me, yes.

So if the evidence tells you that the definition of abuse is social
context dependent, then what determines whether we have one social
context instead of another?


[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?]

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.

Never mind, we'll get to them again - perhaps you didn't perceive the
significance.


[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.

The problem is that the scientific method doesn't often get applied to
the social sciences these days, possibly because it's come up with
some very nasty answers in the past. Even your earlier statements
about "civility", for example, have no grounding as a scientifically
measurable concept outside of the present social context.


Their interpretations are evidentially biased.

It's more accurate to say there are unstated assumptions, and those
assumptions (about social context) are not universal constants.


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

As I say, science can be applied to those disciplines, it just isn't.


[You are
advocating a somewhat fundamental social change,]

Am I? Hardly.

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

There are plenty of things that have been with us throughout history,
and which are "the norm" by your logic, but which are still not
desirable.


[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'.

And the ruling class have teachers and policemen on their side!


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

Which I am not.

It seems to me it would require some fundamental changes.


[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.

I'm glad you recognise that.


[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.

The status quo is by definition *the present*. I'm not saying it
doesn't in fact change very frequently.


[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

They have a poor fit because their impulses are incompatible with
prevailing social standards. Obviously those who are able to refrain
from acting on their impulses still fit nicely, but those who don't,
don't.


[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'?

I presume I mean eliminate those whose strong impulses, or weak self-
control, or unfortunate combination of circumstances, happen to cause
them to be deemed sex offenders.


[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?

You'd be surprised. Up until very recently most parents used to beat
their children (the boys, anyway) black and blue. Yet it was all
perfectly acceptable. And look at, for example, Natasha Kampusch -
she'd apparently become quite fond of Priklopil.



[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.

Yes, I'm quite willing to lay my cards on the table here. I do not
think in aggregate that it would benefit children at all to allow
adults to approach them for sex.


[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.

Perhaps.


[ 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.

Indeed, because something *is* sexual merely if society says it is.


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

And so you would be, if you could get enough people to agree.


[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.

On the contrary, I just understand the more fundamental logic that
apparently you don't.


[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.

I'm sure practices will change if measurements become more accurate.



[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?

Yes, feel free to post the figures, preferably with a breakdown of
offences.


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'

Obviously we ought to be sure the SOR is actually effective in its
aims.



[ 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.

I find that hard to reconcile with empirical evidence. As I say, past
conduct is not a definitive predictor of future conduct, but it
appears to be a risk factor.



[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.

The justification is that you are a perceived risk to children, and
that it is necessary to deter sex offences. Of course if the SOR, and
it's consequences, neither protect children nor deter sex offences,
then perhaps there is room for revision.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Genius of Charles Darwin
    ... scientific method. ... science can tell me whether I should marry this girl or that one. ... the world is also not obligated to accept the fact that the evidence ... religious opinions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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: A cure for diabetes from 1806?
    ... my opinion requires no proof and the evidence I ... provide (case histories from 200 year ago) are proof. ... You recounted a few meaningless anecdotes. ... I guess you need to brush up on the logic of the scientific method. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: questioning Weston Price Foundation
    ... QUOTE: As a researcher once said: "By picking and choosing individual ... The globality of the evidence is therefore analyzed in ... amounts of organic, fermented soy is fine, but large amounts of tofu is ... is that the scientific method should be followed. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)