Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 8:18:08 GMT -5
Oh my goodness..... Just about everything we say in Rationals mind needs a qualifier. My grass is green.......er.....mostly green....there are a couple of brown blades. Your mom is nice.....er......most of the time. cars are used ot transport people.......er......and animals, groceries, and many other things. the sky is blue........er......appears to be blue, and only in the day when its clear outside..... This train is fast......er.......only when its traveling fast. That road is dangerous.........er........only for automobiles. I'm just wondering if the guy constantly corrects people in normal conversation like this.......my goodness that could be irritating! It would be interesting to study how closely conversations develop on a site like this would mirror people's lives in person. My guess is that it's relatively consistent except for the "drive-by" posters. The ability to have a friendly and productive two-way conversation here is likely little different than the ability to do the same in person.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 9:13:34 GMT -5
Oh my goodness..... Just about everything we say in Rationals mind needs a qualifier. My grass is green.......er.....mostly green....there are a couple of brown blades. Your mom is nice.....er......most of the time. cars are used ot transport people.......er......and animals, groceries, and many other things. the sky is blue........er......appears to be blue, and only in the day when its clear outside..... I'm just wondering if the guy constantly corrects people in normal conversation like this.......my goodness that could be irritating! When discussing issues that are as important as child abuse, I do tend to make corrections. When a researcher, with the data to support it, claims that "Not all child sexual abuse traumatizes children. Some are just confused by actions they do not understand." and then a poster claims that "It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." someone needs to correct the impression being given that anyone, other than the poster, has ever made that claim. It is a very good example of the informal logical straw man fallacy. It creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated a proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 9:17:37 GMT -5
Perhaps if you could stop misrepresenting the information presented it would help. No matter how many times you repeat "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." it is still not what anyone but you have claimed. No matter how many times you claim misrepresentation, it doesn't make anything right. Just state the facts correctly and clearly. Enlighten us all about the damages done to children who have experienced child/adult sex. You are misdirecting. Your quote was "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." This is not anything that anyone but you have presented. As to the facts, I have presented at least three studies that support the claims. You have managed to misrepresent what was presented and then expect an explanation of your misrepresentation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 9:21:34 GMT -5
No matter how many times you claim misrepresentation, it doesn't make anything right. Just state the facts correctly and clearly. Enlighten us all about the damages done to children who have experienced child/adult sex. You are misdirecting. Your quote was "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." This is not anything that anyone but you have presented. As to the facts, I have presented at least three studies that support the claims. You have managed to misrepresent what was presented and then expect an explanation of your misrepresentation. Making a correction is not moaning about misrepresentation. It is about clarifying your representation. Speak clearly and definitively and no one will be able to misrepresent your personal views. Please enlighten us about the damages cause by adult/child sex experiences that go beyond mere confusion. Is it or is it not your view that most children experience nothing more than confusion upon sexual acts by adults with them?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 9:24:21 GMT -5
It would be interesting to study how closely conversations develop on a site like this would mirror people's lives in person. My guess is that it's relatively consistent except for the "drive-by" posters. The ability to have a friendly and productive two-way conversation here is likely little different than the ability to do the same in person. I am guessing that when you misrepresent facts in real life people just let it slide and move on. You are a bright articulate person and the subtle changes in paraphrased 'quotes' are probably not noticed at the time but often imply a completely different meaning.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 9:31:19 GMT -5
Making a correction is not moaning about misrepresentation. It is about clarifying your representation. Again, your quote was "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." This is not anything that anyone but you have presented. This is not my claim but the claim of the researchers I presented. This is not about my personal views. It is regarding the research that was presented which you continually misrepresent. I have pointed out a number of such errors, all of which you choose to ignore. I have no idea what you are referring to with this statement. This is not a claim I have made nor is it one that is made by the researchers that I have presented. This is the straw man that you are standing up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 9:43:02 GMT -5
It would be interesting to study how closely conversations develop on a site like this would mirror people's lives in person. My guess is that it's relatively consistent except for the "drive-by" posters. The ability to have a friendly and productive two-way conversation here is likely little different than the ability to do the same in person. I am guessing that when you misrepresent facts in real life people just let it slide and move on. You are a bright articulate person and the subtle changes in paraphrased 'quotes' are probably not noticed at the time but often imply a completely different meaning. I am assuming that whenever you feel misrepresented in real life, you just state that you were misrepresented and make no attempt to correct it. I repeatedly ask for clarification so that I can correct my "misrepresentation" and am constantly responded to with anything but a direct answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 9:44:35 GMT -5
Making a correction is not moaning about misrepresentation. It is about clarifying your representation. Again, your quote was "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." This is not anything that anyone but you have presented. This is not my claim but the claim of the researchers I presented. This is not about my personal views. It is regarding the research that was presented which you continually misrepresent. I have pointed out a number of such errors, all of which you choose to ignore. I have no idea what you are referring to with this statement. This is not a claim I have made nor is it one that is made by the researchers that I have presented. This is the straw man that you are standing up. Yes of course. You may present all the information you like and deny that it forms no part of your personal views. Carry on presenting it and quoting it in your arguments. Of course, since it is not your views, you have plausible deniability. Now could you please enlighten us as to the damages caused by adult/child sex? Your personal view please, based on any study you wish to choose.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jun 30, 2014 12:02:54 GMT -5
Oh my goodness..... Just about everything we say in Rationals mind needs a qualifier. My grass is green.......er.....mostly green....there are a couple of brown blades. Your mom is nice.....er......most of the time. cars are used ot transport people.......er......and animals, groceries, and many other things. the sky is blue........er......appears to be blue, and only in the day when its clear outside..... I'm just wondering if the guy constantly corrects people in normal conversation like this.......my goodness that could be irritating! When discussing issues that are as important as child abuse, I do tend to make corrections. When a researcher, with the data to support it, claims that "Not all child sexual abuse traumatizes children. Some are just confused by actions they do not understand." and then a poster claims that "It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." someone needs to correct the impression being given that anyone, other than the poster, has ever made that claim. It is a very good example of the informal logical straw man fallacy. It creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated a proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition. Thats is the main point you're missing....fixit never used the word "all".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 30, 2014 13:02:54 GMT -5
I feel the same way. After all, if swimming pools are legal for children (even though an occasional swimming pool will destroy a child), then why not legalize child/adult sex? It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst and any evidence to the contrary is anecdotal and therefore invalid. They need to ban women from allowing their babies to nurse. Statistics show that 100% of all alcoholics started with milk first of all.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 30, 2014 13:34:49 GMT -5
I feel the same way. After all, if swimming pools are legal for children (even though an occasional swimming pool will destroy a child), then why not legalize child/adult sex? It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst and any evidence to the contrary is anecdotal and therefore invalid. They need to ban women from allowing their babies to nurse. Statistics show that 100% of all alcoholics started with milk first of all. Ha Bob, breast milk or farmers formula #2? That's apparently what I was fed according to my file! I know, milk is milk Sorry couldn't resist
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 13:53:52 GMT -5
I feel the same way. After all, if swimming pools are legal for children (even though an occasional swimming pool will destroy a child), then why not legalize child/adult sex? It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst and any evidence to the contrary is anecdotal and therefore invalid. They need to ban women from allowing their babies to nurse. Statistics show that 100% of all alcoholics started with milk first of all. Lol, I have used that milk argument lots of times! All murderers had milk as babies too!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 13:57:44 GMT -5
I am guessing that when you misrepresent facts in real life people just let it slide and move on. You are a bright articulate person and the subtle changes in paraphrased 'quotes' are probably not noticed at the time but often imply a completely different meaning. I am assuming that whenever you feel misrepresented in real life, you just state that you were misrepresented and make no attempt to correct it. I repeatedly ask for clarification so that I can correct my "misrepresentation" and am constantly responded to with anything but a direct answer. You stated that "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." That is incorrect paraphrase of the research. I have posted the references several times and you continue to ignore the research and formulate incorrect paraphrases of your own. The best I can do is to point out the errors. If you don't believe they are errors simply post some supporting evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 14:01:21 GMT -5
I am assuming that whenever you feel misrepresented in real life, you just state that you were misrepresented and make no attempt to correct it. I repeatedly ask for clarification so that I can correct my "misrepresentation" and am constantly responded to with anything but a direct answer. You stated that "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." That is incorrect paraphrase of the research. I have posted the references several times and you continue to ignore the research and formulate incorrect paraphrases of your own. The best I can do is to point out the errors. If you don't believe they are errors simply post some supporting evidence. Sorry, I haven't seen it. Please post the correct phrase. Thanks. Also, please enlighten us as to your view of damages to children caused by child/adult sex. Either your personal views or a study that you will commit to agreeing with.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 30, 2014 14:52:46 GMT -5
Dubious argument. Swimming pools and rope are benign and do not proactively seek out children to destroy them. Child sexual predators actively seek out children to their own benefit with no regard to the well being of children. There is a reason why things like swimming pools are considered attractive nuisances - they are likely to attract children and the owner needs to take affirmative action to protect children from that attraction. The same could be said of a rope hanging from a tree. Swimming pools serve a useful purpose. Rope hanging from a tree serves a useful purpose. Sex between adults and children ________________ .
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 14:59:38 GMT -5
When discussing issues that are as important as child abuse, I do tend to make corrections. When a researcher, with the data to support it, claims that "Not all child sexual abuse traumatizes children. Some are just confused by actions they do not understand." and then a poster claims that "It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." someone needs to correct the impression being given that anyone, other than the poster, has ever made that claim. It is a very good example of the informal logical straw man fallacy. It creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated a proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition. Thats is the main point you're missing....fixit never used the word "all". Nor does the phrase "Swimming pools destroy families." However, this post was regarding the incorrect paraphrasing of some of the research presented.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 30, 2014 15:04:03 GMT -5
They need to ban women from allowing their babies to nurse. Statistics show that 100% of all alcoholics started with milk first of all. Ha Bob, breast milk or farmers formula #2? That's apparently what I was fed according to my file! I know, milk is milk Sorry couldn't resist Somehow I never thought powdered milk was real milk. Yuuuuckkk!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 15:18:02 GMT -5
There is a reason why things like swimming pools are considered attractive nuisances - they are likely to attract children and the owner needs to take affirmative action to protect children from that attraction. The same could be said of a rope hanging from a tree. Swimming pools serve a useful purpose. Rope hanging from a tree serves a useful purpose. Sex between adults and children ________________ . Again, a diversion. Your unqualified statement, while true, is the same as "Swimming pools destroy families." or "Balloons destroy families." All are true statements but impart little knowledge. Whether they serve a purpose or not was not the question. They impart little information to the reader and may be viewed as misleading.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 15:29:18 GMT -5
You stated that "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." That is incorrect paraphrase of the research. I have posted the references several times and you continue to ignore the research and formulate incorrect paraphrases of your own. The best I can do is to point out the errors. If you don't believe they are errors simply post some supporting evidence. Sorry, I haven't seen it. Please post the correct phrase. Thanks. Unless you have support for your phrase simply admit your paraphrase is incorrect and let it go. Or continue to post incorrect paraphrases. Your choice. I am sure you can search and find a number of sources detailing the long term damage that some cases of child abuse has caused. My personal views would be limited to my personal knowledge of less than 200 individuals with little statistical data. I have posted a number of studies in other threads and you can view them as you wish. However, for most of the core research on child sexual abuse I would turn to the works of David Finklehor.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 30, 2014 15:39:16 GMT -5
Ha Bob, breast milk or farmers formula #2? That's apparently what I was fed according to my file! I know, milk is milk Sorry couldn't resist Somehow I never thought powdered milk was real milk. Yuuuuckkk! I'm sure I'm traumatized for life from the experience...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 16:42:41 GMT -5
Sorry, I haven't seen it. Please post the correct phrase. Thanks. Unless you have support for your phrase simply admit your paraphrase is incorrect and let it go. Or continue to post incorrect paraphrases. Your choice. Surely my alleged mis-paraphrase and alleged misrepresentation could be correctly re-paraphrased in 10 words or less. How difficult can that be? I'm happy to admit it is not right if the correct paraphrase can be demonstrated to indicate a significant difference. Otherwise, only complaining "misrepresentation" is pretty hollow without something to back it up. So far, my paraphrase still looks right to me. Yes, I'm sure I can, and I have....... but that wasn't what I was asking for. And what then, are those personal views derived from your personal knowledge of a fairly good size group of individuals? Do they all reflect your personal view? Do you do agree with all of David Finklehor's work? For instance, do you agree with him that sexually abused children suffer trauma from their sexual experience with adults?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 20:40:59 GMT -5
Surely my alleged mis-paraphrase and alleged misrepresentation could be correctly re-paraphrased in 10 words or less. How difficult can that be? I don't know. What you have said is not supported by the research presented. How difficult can it be either show data that supports it or simply say you were wrong? My personal views are not the subject of the discussion. They reflect the views of the researchers. I agree with both Finklehor and Clancy that some children suffer trauma from their sexual abuse experiences. This has been stated a number of times by all of the researchers mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 30, 2014 20:48:06 GMT -5
Some people don't want to be shot at by law enforcement officers, even though folks choose to die that way.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 20:52:48 GMT -5
Some people don't want to be shot at by law enforcement officers, even though folks choose to die that way. I like the use of the qualifier!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 21:00:40 GMT -5
Surely my alleged mis-paraphrase and alleged misrepresentation could be correctly re-paraphrased in 10 words or less. How difficult can that be? I don't know. What you have said is not supported by the research presented. How difficult can it be either show data that supports it or simply say you were wrong? Surely it must be easy and simple. Just do it and stop beating around the bush. Really, I am prepared to humble myself in my alleged error. Of course they are. When you repeatedly present certain views, you own them! No doubt. You are misrepresenting both Clancy and Finklehor when you say they claim that "some children suffer trauma". Clancy states that it is "rarely" a trauma. Finklehor states that a significant majority show symptoms of trauma (about 2/3). Do I have to suffer providing you with quotations from their work? Regardless, I really wanted to understand your personal view in an attempt to find some common ground. You seem particularly reluctant to provide any such view, particularly with your understanding of any damages that may result from child sexual encounters with adults. Why? I realize you are reluctant to answer questions regarding your personal views but here is one that you need feel no pressure to answer because it's pretty personal. Hypothetically, if you had had a childhood sexual experience with an adult, do you think you would have experienced any damage?.... either short term or long term?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 1, 2014 5:39:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2014 20:46:13 GMT -5
Surely it must be easy and simple. Just do it and stop beating around the bush. Really, I am prepared to humble myself in my alleged error. I cannot produce what does not exist. You are claiming to paraphrase content that does not exist. Perhaps in your mind. And how is what you stated just now inconsistent with the phrase: "I agree with both Finklehor and Clancy that some children suffer trauma from their sexual abuse experiences."? And yes, Finklehor does state that of the reported cases of abuse about 2/ 3 show symptoms of trauma. But remember that the reported cases probably represent the minority of abuse cases. There are reasons why many abuse cases are not reported. One reason determined was that the 'victim' was not traumatized and in some cases did not consider it abuse. In many cases it was simply forgotten. I have explained many times what I experienced while working with hundreds of individuals who had experienced child abuse of all types and across the spectrum from minor to severe. My observations were met here on TMB with emotional outbursts and the same type of response that has been experienced by others who voiced an opinion that was not in line with the current politically correct thinking. Despite the many written records on various sites, the posted stories of Jean and others, posters telling of their own experiences with physical abuse the claim was made repeatedly that physical abuse within the F&W was negligible and not an issue. This in spite of a case in MI where children were removed from a family because the state felt the children were in danger. This is an example of how entrenched people are in their beliefs and how difficult it is, even with supporting evidence, to have individuals even consider possibilities that run counter to the current politically correct thinking. As an alternative approach I located well researched publications that supported what I had observed and the result was the same - instant denial of any validity because it did not agree with the present line of thinking. Distortion of what the research presented rather than a discussion of what the research actually claimed. Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term. However it does need to be reiterated that abuse of children, emotional, sexual and/or physical, is wrong, no matter what the outcome for the child. This is a view that I have always held and is consistent with the views presented by Finklehor, Clancy, and other researchers mentioned. These are questions that are not possible to answer with the information provided. The definition of child sexual abuse is so broad that the there would need to be explicit descriptions of what happened, the relationship between the two actors, whether the experience was forced or voluntary, the age of the actors, the length of the experience, did the abuse involve contact or not, the ultimate conclusion of the activity, was the abuse discovered or did no one else know about the experience, etc. This highlights the problem with making unqualified claims about child abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 20:58:10 GMT -5
For a proportion of victims of child sexual assault the experience is predominantly confusing rather than directly traumatic or abusive. The general conception of child sexual assault held by western society may be inaccurate, not recognising the broad spectrum of experiences this might encompass. Specifically, the general conception may assume CSA is a directly abusive experience for the victim. The consequence of this inaccurate view might be use of inappropriate therapy models and/or inappropriate responses by adult in the victim’s world. True? False? I think what Rational is trying to say is that there are different degrees of abuse and not all of them leave lasting issues. I agree this is probably true. I am not sure why he feels that treatment can make it worse, but I'll give it a shot. I would imagine that if someone that was abused by societies standards, didn't feel they were abused, that maybe the whole incident could be made worse if they were made to think there was something wrong with what happened. I suppose it could lead them to think maybe their was something wrong with them because they were not reacting in the 'standard' way, whatever that might be. That may lead to guilt I suppose. However, if the person that has been abused, knows it is wrong and has any reaction to it in a negative way, I don't think treatment will make them worse. In the studies that were discussed earlier, this point was made. Some of the victims did not even think about coming forward because they did not consider what happened to them to be abuse. Many young children do not consider inappropriate touching to be abuse. At best they are confused. Sometimes even gratified that someone is paying attention to them. Then when someone tells them it was not their fault they have that to consider. Now they can dwell on that and try to reassure themselves that it indeed was not something that they did - a point they may not have considered. Or, even worse, they could go an talk to someone who could 'recover' memories about the terrible things that they now believed actually happened. I am trying to understand your comments here Rational. I assume "At best they are confused." was referring to a scale where best is most 'negative' outcome. I am wondering what would be an at worst outcome on this scale? "Then when someone tells them it was not their fault they have that to consider. Now they can dwell on that and try to reassure themselves that it indeed was not something that they did - a point they may not have considered." I assume you are not implying a negative outcome due to further confusion. So, is the problem with someone telling or what they told? Would you agree for some victims of CSA one of the most important messages they could hear is 'it is not your fault'? Is what you are talking about here that adults in the world of a victim of CSA should tailor their responses to best meet the needs of the victim, rather than based on an assumed scenario? I assume you have had a look at the guidelines provided by Wings for those reponding to CSA disclosure. One of the guidelines states: "Tell the child it is not his fault. Many children will think that the abuse happened because of something they did or did not do. Don’t over dramatize." Are you happy with this guideline or and the guidelines in general or do you believe, in light of Clancy or any other social scientist's research, these guidelines could lead to a victim being harmed? Link is here - wingsfortruth.info/responding-to-csa/child-disclosure/ I haven't read Clancy's book, unable to access it yet. What proportion of victims did Clancy find as only being traumatised by the response of adults to the experience? Where these victims then placed in the group who were judged as being traumatised by the CSA experience or in the group non-traumatised? Since I'm driving by I might as well throw out some unqualified impressions based on my anecdotal personal view of the world. I have found confusion to be a source of trauma in my life, both as adult and child. I have observed it as being a trauma for other human beings. In my professional employment providing educational and therapuetic experiences for youth my experience is that minimising confusion would have to one of the core principles underpinning program design. I can see Clancy's studies have raised some vital issues but concluding confusion is a 'neutral' experience does not fit with my reality.
|
|