Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

[SNIP can be easily tested against reality, while big lies are
generally
more complex and harder to test.]

Which may be true, but inapplicable to me.

[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.]

I agree, so what?

[That said, I found it laughable that you'd expect people to take you
on trust, because even if you are honest,]

Which I am, evidentially.

[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. ]

Why not, are they that stupid?

[Especially
because interests are notorious for affecting judgment, if not
corrupting the heart.]

I agree, so what?

[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.]

.... and this has to do with me, how?

[ 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.]

Why not?

[ 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?]

Yes, that is where I draw my line in the sand, based on all the
evidence of life, as the best best compromise, so as to enable a
humane society, for the majority.

[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?]

Firstly, people do not presume just a moral position when they hear
'CSA/CA', they presume serious harm, with all the subsequent abuses of
others.

Also, like any word which has become so 'vague', it has become,
essentially, useless, expect for prejudicial reasons.

And no, I do not see social context as the arbiter of what is correct
in life ... I see logic, science, rationality, clear definitions etc
etc as being the best vehicle; social context may just follow, if it
wishes.

[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.]

It's here if you want it.

[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]

I cannot accept denial.

[Even your earlier statements
about "civility", for example, have no grounding as a scientifically
measurable concept outside of the present social context.]

Yes they do ... 'civility' enables productive, neural states.
Incivility jeopardises them That is not social context, it is
neuroscience.

In fact, some would argue that there is no 'social context' , only the
outcomes of neural interactions.

[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.]

No, they offer no alternatives. It is bias and contrary to the
scientific method.

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.]

Actually, it is in some cases, I was teasing (NOT LYING THOUGH) ;)

[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.]

Indeed, some things which are essential are not desirable.

However, in this case, I believe it to be beneficial, in the long run,
for the majority.

[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!]

Good job they are on their way out.

[But of course, if one advocates fundamental social
change,
Which I am not.
It seems to me it would require some fundamental changes.}

What changes do you think I am advocating?

[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.]

Heh, I am standing outside the gas chamber and I aint wearing a
helmet.

(If it happened, as described, of course, but that is another
story ;) ).

[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.]

I am not sure you really know what the present situation actually is.

[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 ]

Who?

[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.]

That is such a tiny number of sexual offenders, as to be no more an
issue (in scale) to that of violent schizophrenics (i.e. very
small) ... another abused minority, for much the same reasons.

[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.]

Like gays, bis, transsexuals, not so long ago?

[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.]

Does not mean they liked it - duh. I am aware some do, but, that
again, is another story ;)

[And look at, for example, Natasha Kampusch -
she'd apparently become quite fond of Priklopil.]

Of course, they were consensual lovers.

[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.]

Morals, thoughts and beliefs are fine. it does not make them true.

[ 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.]

Do you really believe this?

If society said that cutting down a tree was sexual, would it be?

What makes cutting down a tree sexual?
What makes having sexual intercourse sexual?

Is there, perhaps, some fundamental requirement (before, during or
after) in the second, which is absent from the first?

[That is madness. I am Napoleon, because I say I am.
And so you would be, if you could get enough people to agree.]

No I would not. I can never be. No one can ever be, even a Napoleonic
clone. There are fundamental requirements, to be Napoleon Bonaparte.

[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.]

Well, you think that I would be Napoleon Bonaparte, if enough people
thought so, thus, I rest my case.

[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.]

'Sexual offences' - Long-term national recorded crime trend
http://www.critest.com/documents/Sexualoffences_Longtermnationalrecordedcrimetrend.png

(Accessed, Sun Jan 06, 2008 ... not apparently online now).

*****

Crime in England and Wales 2007-08
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics074.htm

"Sexual offences down 7%"

The police recorded 41,460 most serious sexual offences in 2007/08,
five per cent
fewer than the 43,738 recorded in 2006/07. These offences accounted
for 77 per cent
of total sexual offences and just under one per cent of all recorded
crime in 2007/08.
• Within this total, rapes of a female fell by eight per cent to
11,648 offences, and rapes
of a male fell by 13 per cent to 1,006 offences. Sexual assaults on a
female fell by four
per cent to 20,534 offences, and sexual assaults on a male also fell
by four per cent to
2,642 offences.

• The police recorded 12,080 other sexual offences in 2007/08, 12 per
cent fewer than in
2006/07. Within this total there were falls in incest or familial
sexual offences (16% to
1,125 offences) and soliciting for the purposes of prostitution (2% to
1,258 offences).
• Based on the 2006/07 BCS self-completion module on intimate violence
(see Box 3.2),
approximately three per cent of women and one per cent of men had
experienced a
sexual assault (including attempts) in the previous 12 months. The
majority of these are
accounted for by less serious sexual assaults. Less than one per cent
of both women

******

i.e. 41,460 most serious sexual offences + 12,080 other sexual
offences in 2007/08 = 53540

Of course, you need to be careful of the different counting systems
(not to mention 'The Dark Figure'), but the first link and 53540
illustrates my point (The 'SOR' was started in 1997). I think you can
work out what actually led to the, 'apparent' , decrease, since
2005/2006.

Have a go with this too, if you like.(I hate it).

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/soti.html

[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.]

I simply disagree with the bad character process.

[As I say, past
conduct is not a definitive predictor of future conduct, but it
appears to be a risk factor.]

Where does it 'appear ' to be?

[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]

No I am not and never have been, by any measure, only by un-evidenced,
prejudicial, mythical and ill-informed, populist rhetoric. That is the
very point I am making (and not just for me, of course)

The reason I cannot work with children, is not because I am risk to
them, it is because I am 'unsuitable' (what used to be called 'not fit
and proper').

Which, incidentally, is a moral position and grossly abusive to me and
others. We will will be hearing much more of this, in the next year or
so ;)

[and
that it is necessary to deter sex offences]

Not the issue.

[Of course if the SOR, and
it's consequences, neither protect children nor deter sex offences,
then perhaps there is room for revision.]

There was a revision, it is called MAPPA.

WM
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... I do not see social context as the arbiter of what is correct ... I regularly find language is ... There are fundamental requirements, to be Napoleon Bonaparte. ... 'Sexual offences' - Long-term national recorded crime trendhttp://www.critest.com/documents/Sexualoffences_Longtermnationalrecor ... ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Police seizing personal mail
    ... for suspecting that there is evidence on those premises that relates ... to the offence or similar offences". ... are reasonable grounds to suspect exists". ... And if he thinks that the police are obliged to ignore a stash of kiddie ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Police seizing personal mail
    ... for suspecting that there is evidence on those premises that relates ... to the offence or similar offences". ... are reasonable grounds to suspect exists". ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Cyclist jailed for pavemant death
    ... pleads that points will mean an automatic ban (she has already ... been convicted of several offences), and that means she would have to ... Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit. ... He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: OT: Enough!
    ... evidence that, in certain circumstances, where a person is charged ... with a series of offences, evidence, even from a single source, in ... I suppose you stroke snakes, ... Not only does he complain about others, ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)