Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

On 4 June, 14:20, Webmanager_CritEst <webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[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?

Lol. Are you joking? (I just can't tell!)



[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?

The point is that you may well be a fool, who believes something
because it would be convenient for him, not because it is true.


[ 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?

That's what we're haggling over, isn't it.


[ 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.

Ho ho. Considering your emphasis on logic, there appears to be no more
logical or scientific basis behind your moral position than any other.


[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?]

[..snip...]

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.

God almighty. You honestly think there is an objective definition of
right and wrong outside of social context??


[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.

Pff!


[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.

It seems to me you're making an argument about the desirability of
social cooperation; there is no need to go as basic as neuroscience to
make that argument. However, what happens when there is no basis for
cooperation, and interests are opposed?


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

And that can be argued. The question is what these people are trying
to achieve when they make such arguments.


[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.

Well, regardless of terminology, we both know what's being said here
and we both appear to be in sufficient agreement.



[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) ;)

You may well have been teasing, but there's some truth in what you
say, that the scientific method is not applied anywhere near as
rigourously to the social sciences as it is to the physical sciences,
which (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective)
leaves large gaps for assumption and ideology.


[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.

Ah, the necessary evil.


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

A belief which is a priori, it seems.


[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.

Lol. The point I'm making is that you don't just need truth on your
side, but also a substantial number of supporters who see their
interests as aligned with yours. Usually the "truth" is only embraced
when it appears to provide benefits; if it's inconvenient, it's
ignored as much as possible.



 [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 ;) ).

Lol.


[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.

You miss the point I was making. The point is that people who are
happy with the status quo defend it, and they are normally happy with
it because it appears to serve their interests, and therefore the only
changes in the law that they will support are those that appear to
improve on the status quo, not which destabilise it. As such, the law
is not based on "tosh" (see your earlier reply), it's just that many
people don't seem to recognise it is founded on fundamentally
interests rather than some universal truth or moral standard.


[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.

And indeed, people advocate *treatment* for violent schizophrenics,
not social change whereupon people may learn to enjoy the violent
assaults of schizophrenics.


[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?

Indeed. As I've said before though, such widespread acceptance
wouldn't have been possible in the social circumstances even 50 years
ago. Just for a start it would have challenged the literal authority
of the Bible, which was still big back then, don't you know ;)


 [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 ;)

I didn't say they liked *it*, I said they "come to love their jailers
and tormentors". More broadly, though, there are plenty of behaviours
that become pleasant through association. One imagines the brutal
beating one will regularly get in a boxing match would be aversive to
most people, and yet some people come to prefer it through association
with the skill and status conveyed.


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

Of course, they were consensual lovers.

Haha! I didn't see that response coming. Still, the fact of the matter
is, whatever relationship they had stemmed from abduction and
imprisonment, not from the child's "free choice".


[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.

I never said it does, but hopefully I'm explaining the logic behind
them.


[ 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?

Regularly yes it would be. The problem is one must ask what do they
mean, and what process or attributes are they describing. In a
hypothetical society that said such a thing, would the word "sexual"
mean the same to them as it would to us?

Also have you noticed how difficult it is to program a computer to
recognise physical objects? Apparently it's very difficult to describe
even a table.


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?

It's an interesting area of questioning. I regularly find language is
used to describe something that is mutually understood, but which
cannot easily be defined further. The French have a phrase for it: "je
ne sais quoi". Of course I'm not an expert on the behavioural aspect
of language, so I haven't got much to say on the subject, although
I've noticed people appear to have an intuitive layer of understanding
which is not based on language or even explicit thought. So that, for
example, I can describe something as sexual, and be regularly
understood, without having the language to define sexual.



[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.

The question is what do they mean.


[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.

If enough people described you as Napoleon Bonaparte, then I don't see
any *logical* basis for saying that you're not, unless the term is
further defined using mutually agreed language and there is found to
be some difference in meaning. And then if there is some difference in
meaning, then what you may find is not a logical fault, but that in
fact the two parties are not speaking the same language! To apply
logic to the matter, you would first have to establish an agreed
'base' language, then you would have to define on top of that 'base'
langauge such terms as "Napoleon Bonaparte", and then you'd have to
show that according to the base definition of "Napoleon Bonaparte",
the attributes of Nigel Oldfield are not described by the term
"Napoleon Bonaparte".



[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 trendhttp://www.critest.com/documents/Sexualoffences_Longtermnationalrecor...

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

*****

Crime in England and Wales 2007-08http://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

I can't access your site - it's blocked by my ISP. Anyway the
statistics are probably useless here - there's too much room for
argument on them!


[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?

I dare say common sense!


 [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 ;)

As I say this is easily explained, but then one has to accept that
education is synonymous with indoctrination and brainwashing. And
society is hardly going to allow children to be brainwashed with
undesirable/antisocial beliefs, after all.
.