Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

[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.]

Ask me again, succinctly.

[ 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.]

I do not only depend on logic (which you now seem to be hung up on), I
just expect it to be always operational.

I am an empiricist..

[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.]

Not select at all, all that exists (TMK).

What I *infer* is, presently, the best working hypothesis.

[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.]

Truth needs no support, once realised.

[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).]

Only ever for a 'short' time, until society catches up.

[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).]

But as I said, there is no status quo, so it is a moot point.

[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.]

... and such false interests always dissipate, in time..

[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.]

By what definition?

Schizophrenia does not increase risk of violent crime
http://www.physorg.com/news162047519.html

[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.]

You have no idea, do you know much about her mother?

You also have no idea what was said.

[Of course, having been forced to do exactly that,]

Forced?

[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.]

Especially when it is harmless, fun and exciting.

[Morals and logic, you think they have any correlation ? :)
I'm saying moral feeling can be explained logically (within certain
assumptions made, of course!).]

Noted.

[ 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.]

Of course, way back and that is what the thing becomes, forever (with
a relatively, tiny number of exceptions, as time passes).

[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.]

Of course it does, see figure 4.2

Language development from birth to three

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XX-f4AmsxJQC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=language+development+heirarchical&source=bl&ots=tIiubbf2vz&sig=tktcLEyfWdm0gy1E-vorVNM4fN4&hl=en&ei=gsooSu63Npm6jAfp0YSACw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA103,M1

That is how language works. i.e an object which is animated and is an
animal and is .... etc etc is Napoleon Bonaparte.

[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.]

Well I hope Fig 4.2 assists, as a start.

[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.]

See above, as a start.

I have no idea why you think your last comment is an issue, as we
talking about human neuroscience, here, which guides (controls?) all
our behaviour.

[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]

No, because their DNA starts to differ, as soon as the zygote is
formed.

Identical twins do not have identical DNA, they have very similar DNA
and it become more dissimilar as every second passes.

The Claim: Identical Twins Have Identical DNA
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html

Again, a straw man (and a rubbish one ;) ), as I am not a twin of
Napoleon Bonaparte.

[See
how difficult it is to define what you mean by Napoleon?]

No I cannot see at all, and nor should you. Logic is not everything.

[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.]

Rarely for one word (unless someone does not know what the word
means). As the combinations increase, I would expect that to be the
case (as complexity leads to different interpretations).

[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.]

Oh no, indecent images was a large contributor, too. The more society
marginalises people, the more crime increases.

[ "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.]

Again, 'you' misunderstand risk. Risk is something which is assessed
about an individual.

Now, if you had said 'likelihood', we have already agreed, that this
can only be for a given cohort, not an individual ... and then,
really, only for a repeat of the original offence and no other.

[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.]

Looks like you need to provide evidence for a second claim, now :)

WM
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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
    ... 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: 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: JEINT EVERYTHING
    ... >>> himself in a fashion that we as a society should not condone. ... I was using Chaucer as an example of how English has evolved over ... >> Your country has nothing to do with language and how it evolves. ... >> liberal agenda has nothing to do with language. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)