Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

On 5 June, 03:40, Webmanager_CritEst <webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

Now you are learning.

I was actually asking what *you* think. My political views are very
sympathetic to Marxism, so I'm quite at home talking about interests.



 [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.

Logic still comes back to axioms, and people choose axioms that serve
their perceived interests.


[ 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.

You've shown no empirical evidence that paedophilia is beneficial for
society in the long term. You merely suppose it will by extrapolating
from select pieces of evidence.


[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).

You can have truth, and still have no support. That tends to happen
when "the truth" reveals people's interests to be diametrically
opposed.



[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.

You'll find throughout history that is exactly what has happened. Look
at the "epicycle" explanation of the Heavens - people were saying for
a long time that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but it
challenged the prevailing ideology, and so the truth was ignored (and
indeed suppressed).



[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.

Not at all. I'm saying the status quo *only* changes when a sufficient
number of people find their interests are no longer served, and then
either a new social order will form which resolves the tension between
interests (for a time, anyway), or society will dissolve altogether
(in the case of the Roman empire, for example).


[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.

Exactly.


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

I think by definition these people tend to be harmful.



[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.

You miss the point. If the child had been asked "do you want to go and
live with this stranger and never see your parents again?", I dare say
she'd have said no. Of course, having been forced to do exactly that,
she found it wasn't so bad after all. But that's just exactly what I
said, which is that people can be made to like anything.


[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 ? :)

I'm saying moral feeling can be explained logically (within certain
assumptions made, of course!).



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

Spitting tea.

The point I'm making is that a language is defined however the
speakers define it.



[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? ;)

It's untenable to say that language has any objective definition. As I
say, I'm not really up on the behavioural aspect of language, so I'm
not really in a position to make any emphatic arguments on the
subject.



[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)?

No, I'm not familiar with it, although I can tell you I would reject
any explanation of language that tries to explain it outside of being
a human behaviour.




[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.

By that logic, identical twins are one and the same individual. See
how difficult it is to define what you mean by Napoleon? I should
point out that there appears to be a statistical element somewhere in
language - so that there is never a 100% correlation between what two
people who are said to speak the same language actually mean.


[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? ;)

Worse, my provider is H3G.


[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.

I would have assumed that the discrepancy isn't due to any fundamental
change in behaviour - only a redefinition and increased detection of
sexual offences.


[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)

Hehe. Still, I don't think I need to go into further detail to show
that past conduct is a risk factor for similar future conduct. It's
not the only factor, but it is *a* factor. I refer to common sense not
because I'm in want of a coherent argument, but simply because I don't
think it's worth wasting any time on a matter which ought to be
uncontentious.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... proof) that I approach the truth, ... I regularly find language is ... I am Napoleon, ... If enough people described you as Napoleon Bonaparte, ...
    (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: Origins of French partitive, pas, etc.
    ... > I guess what I'm saying is that I hold as axiomatic that the language ... Imagined truth is what governed societies before they figured out the scientific approach to assessing truth. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • 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: 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)