Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

[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, if I am joking, you will see a smiley or I will say so.

[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,]

Evidentially I am not.

[who believes something
because it would be convenient for him, ]

Evidentially not.

[not because it is true.]

Again, you suggest truth, I have only claimed (based on evidence and
proof) that I approach the truth, more than many.

[ 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.]

I am not haggling, I am humouring you, for a little longer, but it
will not be too long.

[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.]

See above. Evidentially there is. In fact, there is in everything I
believe.

Sources please? You are now, almost totally, groundless rhetoric.

[ 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??]

No (I try not use such morally-laden terms, such as right and wrong,
good and bad), but there are truth and falsehoods. Correct and
incorrect. Acceptable and unacceptable.

[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.]

Yes there is, because sometimes there is no desirability of
social cooperation, and that requires explanation.

[However, what happens when there is no basis for
cooperation, and interests are opposed?]

Now you are learning.

[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.]

Truth.

[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.]

There is no such thing as evil, as there is no such thing as good.

There is only acceptable and unacceptable, truth and falsehood.

[ 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, empirical and semi-empirical.

[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,]

See below.

[but also a substantial number of supporters who see their
interests as aligned with yours.]

That does not concern me, that is not my aim.

The truth always outs (when it can).

[Usually the "truth" is only embraced
when it appears to provide benefits; if it's inconvenient, it's
ignored as much as possible.]

That is not 'The Truth', it is the present dogma.

[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.]

How can you know that?

[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.]

For a time, yes.

[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.]

Indeed, Law is not truth, I often say that, here. You seem to be
saying that the status quo always remains and must always be accepted.

BTW, I am humouring you, because the status quo never exists (i.e. the
existing state of affairs), everything is always in flux and changing
(except 'The Truth').

[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.]

People with vested interests do.

Of course, a small number of sex offenders/violent schizophrenics do
cause, proven serious harm.

However, you eeled yourself away, from the vast majorities, I see.

[like gays, bis, transsexuals, not so long ago?
Indeed.

Noted. TY.

[ 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.]

Still does not mean they like it or it is pleasant. It is about
tolerance and compromise.

How many things do people choose to do, which is not one or both of
these (i.e. like it or it is pleasant)?

[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".]

All the reports point to the opposite. Abduction does not negate "free
choice", in fact, it often does not.

[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.}

Morals and logic, you think they have any correlation ? :)

[ If society said that cutting down a tree was sexual, would it be?
Regularly yes it would be.]

Spitting tea.

[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?]

Possibly, but 'cutting trees' would probably mean 'having a shag' in
your world.

[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.]

Straw man.

[ 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.]

No you cannot, unless you all accept the fundamental requirements in
the definition ... or it really is the Tower of Babylon.

[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.]

No it is not. I have told you what the answer is.

[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,]

When did you accept the Chair of Post-modernism at the University of
La La Land? ;)

[unless the term is
further defined using mutually agreed language and there is found to
be some difference in meaning.]

You do know how language works, do you not (hierarchical meaning and
all that)?

[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! ]

Even words in different languages, have the same fundamental
requirements.

[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".]

There is a base definition of Napoleon Bonaparte, by many measures.

One concrete way to prove you incorrect, of course, would be to
compare Napoleon Bonaparte's DNA to Nigel Oldfield's DNA; job done.

Such is the power of science.

[ http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/soti.html
[I can't access your site - it's blocked by my ISP]

Very odd, are you in prison? ;)

[Anyway the
statistics are probably useless here - there's too much room for
argument on them!]

Hebe, you cannot see the graph in the first link?

Recorded 'sexual offences' have, essentially, doubled, since the
introduction of the 'SOR' (never mind other, subsequently, related
crimes),

As the laws continue to become more draconian, I suggest this increase
will continue.

[Where does it 'appear ' to be?
I dare say common sense!]

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen."
Albert Einstein, (attributed)

[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,]

So is Rwanda.

[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. ]

That is why I do not (when being 'monitored' ;) ).

WM
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... There is only acceptable and unacceptable, truth and falsehood. ... saying that the status quo always remains and must always be accepted. ... If enough people described you as Napoleon Bonaparte, ... It's untenable to say that language has any objective definition. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... You can have truth, ... It's untenable to say that language has any objective definition.] ... etc etc is Napoleon Bonaparte. ... Identical twins do not have identical DNA, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Those are specifications for two points in a 2D array of naturals, ... I'm just saying it boils down to quantity (including truth values), language, and operators. ... Remember, I included the language of expression, and the operators allowed in the language, in mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... You can have truth, ... Only ever for a 'short' time, until society catches up. ... The point I'm making is that a language is defined however the ... Identical twins do not have identical DNA, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... [Only ever for a 'short' time, until society catches up. ... I didn't say schizophrenics tended to be violent. ... talking about what language is, ... the point I'm making is that if you define Napoleon as as ...
    (uk.legal)