|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 14:30:49 GMT -5
[No - I don't think you have got it. They did the prudent thing, which is to take care of the children within their sphere of influence. You said they should have reported him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than trying to handle the case on their own. One can BOTH get the authorities involved AND continue to take care of children within one's sphere of influence. These are not mutually exclusive. And once you contact the authorities, it is then true that you are no longer handling the case on your own.
Think "Both/And" rather than "Either/Or" and some of the conflict in this thread might evaporate.
DMG's post makes perfect sense when you consider a reportable 'case', but the thread wasn't talking about that; it was about non-reportable suspicions and what to do about them. In that case, her suggestion seems quite daft. So ... she wasn't daft, but in the context, she appeared to be daft.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 24, 2014 14:41:58 GMT -5
The big picture is that your strategy for handling CSA is unworkable. That's really all Clearday said. Using his understanding of what I said I think he believed that.My plan was to report the individual that people suspected might abuse children to the authorities. I said nothing more than that. I never stated, as implied countless times, that the parents should do nothing else. I did not have the idea of turning over the parenting of the children to the authorities. I simply stated that moving the suspected individual to a different meeting location was not a wise solution given the ad vice of every child protection agency in the world.And see, there you already have a false premise in the mix. Not believing that the suspect should be moved to a different location for meeting does not equal doing nothing. First and foremost, it has always been my stance for almost 20,000 posts on this message board alone, that the parents are responsible for the safety of their children.No, I am not in favor of a group being responsible for the safety of children. Churches and other organizations have not done a stellar job protecting children. But not being in favor of the parents acting as a group does not imply in any way that I believe the parents should do nothing. I believe they should not take the one step that was proposed but that does not imply they do nothing. People acting in groups is where the cracks form and where the result is abused children.Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination. You might feel safe because the workers have a published guideline regarding child abuse but I would not be at all comfortable with that. I commented extensively on the guidelines and voiced my disagreement with some aspects when they were being developed. Any additional comments at this time could be seen as undermining what I believe, in spite of what I consider flaws, to be a very good start. Which brings me back to the point that the big picture you construct from flawed details is not accurate and, when the big picture is said to reflect the ideas and beliefs of the individual to whom the flawed details have been attributed, there is bound to be feed back. In outline form: 1) I believe that if someone is suspected of being a threat to children they should be reported to the authorities. 2) I do not believe that moving a suspected individual to a different meeting location is the solution or a prudent decision. Those are the two points. And from those Clearday, and now you, have drawn your own conclusion that I thought the parents of the children should do nothing and my idea was to turn over the parenting to the authorities. There are so many things that parents could do instead of moving the person to a new meeting location that it seems silly to mention them - warn their children of what type of contact avoid having with the individual, tell the individual of the type of contact with which they are comfortable, closely monitor their children before, during, and after the meeting, etc., etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 14:42:18 GMT -5
Boy, even the above post of mine is way too long not to be boring! Not to me. (I did take an English degree late in life and did a lot of close reading and analysis. You know, the kind that drives people away from reading books. ) And I, for one, am still learning from all of you, thank you. I simply miss CD's contribution, even though I understand his departure. I've been falsely accused, even libeled in this forum. It is not enjoyable. Nonetheless, my desire is to be like the one I worship, false accusations and all.
CD, if you are reading here, please return to post again?
Dennis
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 14:50:28 GMT -5
When you nit-pick every line that someone posts, its natural that they will get the idea that you take an opposing view. When I take an opposing view I generally can make myself known. I was opposing the view that the individual should be moved to a different meeting location because of the suspicions of the members of the meeting but for some reason should not be reported to the authorities.Where did that come from? I can't imagine that CD ever wrote that.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 15:01:22 GMT -5
My plan was to report the individual that people suspected might abuse children to the authorities. I said nothing more than that. I never stated, as implied countless times, that the parents should do nothing else. I did not have the idea of turning over the parenting of the children to the authorities. I simply stated that moving the suspected individual to a different meeting location was not a wise solution given the ad vice of every child protection agency in the world. Show us the data.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 15:09:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 24, 2014 15:20:31 GMT -5
One can BOTH get the authorities involved AND continue to take care of children within one's sphere of influence. These are not mutually exclusive. And once you contact the authorities, it is then true that you are no longer handling the case on your own.
Think "Both/And" rather than "Either/Or" and some of the conflict in this thread might evaporate.
DMG's post makes perfect sense when you consider a reportable 'case', but the thread wasn't talking about that; it was about non-reportable suspicions and what to do about them. In that case, her suggestion seems quite daft. So ... she wasn't daft, but in the context, she appeared to be daft. In the state I live in "suspicion" is enough to require a report to be submitted by a mandated reporter, and is acceptable grounds for anyone to submit a report. In other states, everyone (not sure about underaged) is considered a mandated reporter and is required to eport suspicions. Why use the word "daft"? Are you interested in resolving any of the misunderstandings, hard feelings and frustrations that have developed here? Others are also using what I consider inflammatory words that imo are unhelpful in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 15:29:05 GMT -5
I expect you to interpret my statement just as I said it. They should have " reported him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than them trying to handle the case on their own."
They were amateurs. The authorities know better how to handle such issues than amateurs.
They were just passing a decision on down the line when they should have reported it to the people (the authorities) that had the expertise in handling such a situation.
GOT IT?
No - I don't think you have got it. They did the prudent thing, which is to take care of the children within their sphere of influence. You said they should have reported him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than trying to handle the case on their own. I meant Have you GOT IT. Obviously you haven't.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 15:31:45 GMT -5
DMG: How did you expect us to interpret the following statement: What does 'rather than' mean to you? Exactly the same answer that I gave you before.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 15:38:02 GMT -5
From what I understand, there was nothing to report, so the meeting acted wisely and responsibly in taking preventative measures. Why accuse them of failing to report something when there was nothing to report, or of only caring for their own group and not caring for others? There were times when I wondered at someone's interest in children and as a result I just watched them more closely. But there was nothing inappropriate to report or to warrant any kind action. Now, if that same person was a convicted offender (or just a known offender), I would have taken action. What was done in the case CD mentioned seemed quite appropriate. But, still, just being friendly to kids and taking interest in them is not a reportable offense, therefore there was no failure on the part of the meeting. I see your answer to CD as an overreaction, and I see CD's answer to you as an overreaction in this case. But I can see how both of you would have responded that way without any malicious thought or intent. If there nothing to report, why did they feel the need that he was paying too much attention to a child that they "transferred" him to a different meeting?
If he were a "convicted" 'CHILD ABUSER" as it is claimed that he was, that was enough to report him.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 15:41:42 GMT -5
Come one, What Hat, that was the problem. The pieces synthesized were not accurate - they were incorrect. You even said they were inferred. And when he didn't have the pieces that fit into the picture he was building he made them up from whole cloth. He asked for examples and when I provided them he proceeded to change the facts of the examples to conform to his beliefs. He even suggested, for example, that I change the age of the child involved to fit his expectations. That was the root of the problem - ideas, beliefs, positions that I never had or endorsed. Clearday could not build his big picture with the ideas as I presented them because there was data supporting the idea that not all child abuse, sexual, physical, or emotional, caused short or long term damage and that was something that he could not accept. You have gone back and retrofit like Matthew, picking 'prophecies' from the OT to support his beliefs. The big picture is that your strategy for handling CSA is unworkable. That's really all Clearday said. I wouldn't have been quite so polite as he was, if it was me. He tried to tell you nicely that your plan amounted to dereliction of duty; I would just say your approach is idiotic. Then I would backspace that and change it to unworkable. In order to me to build up to that statement, my "pieces" are that your approach is to call authorities on the least suspicion, and parents collectively to do nothing, including moving known offenders to another meeting. You're in favour of parents acting individually, you've never said anything in favour of parents acting as a collective, that is, as a church or other organization, to prevent child sexual abuse. I can only assume that this is an error of omission; that is, you never mention it because you know nothing about it, or you have some libertarian idea that parents acting individually are sufficient to handle the problem. That is how I build to a conclusion based on the pieces that I know. Clearday no doubt was building a slightly different picture; but it amounts to the same thing. No, that is NOT what CD said. Reread his quote about myself & Rational.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 15:51:45 GMT -5
Not to me. (I did take an English degree late in life and did a lot of close reading and analysis. You know, the kind that drives people away from reading books. ) And I, for one, am still learning from all of you, thank you. I simply miss CD's contribution, even though I understand his departure. I've been falsely accused, even libeled in this forum. It is not enjoyable. Nonetheless, my desire is to be like the one I worship, false accusations and all.
CD, if you are reading here, please return to post again?
Dennis As I have said before, often CD's contribution on this board was well thought and informative. However, in this case it was a misrepresentation of what I had said.
However, this time It was he that "falsely accused" me of something I did NOT say.
He had done this to me many times before.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 15:57:29 GMT -5
If there nothing to report, why did they feel the need that he was paying too much attention to a child that they "transferred" him to a different meeting?
If he were a "convicted" 'CHILD ABUSER" as it is claimed that he was, that was enough to report him.
If he was 'convicted' it means the authorities already know about him. Its probably a waste of their time having copious reports filed on the grounds of 'suspicion'. I would try to keep a recovering alcoholic away from the temptation of alcohol, and I would try to keep a known child abuser away from the temptation of taking advantage of children. What CD was trying to explain was that there's much more that can be done to protect children than report suspicion to authorities.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 24, 2014 16:05:54 GMT -5
I presume this statement was made by Rational above as it is difficult to know which he quotes from other posts and which are his own comments. I know I need to change the colors on my screen so that the differences show up more.
Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination."
Woww, specialists in the field of sexual abuse do not advocate parents acting alone. There are many reasons for this. One is, most parents do not have the skills or knowledge about sexual abuse to know if abuse is occurring. If they did the abuse may not have occurred in the first place. Also, a significant amount of abuse occurs in the home right under the nose of or by the parent. And if a parent was sexually abused themselves they are more likely to go into denial or the opposite, be over protective. Also abusers in the family like to isolate their family, act alone and avoid authority figures. Most parents are not equipped to pick up the signs of sexual abuse until it is too late. How many victims say that they tried to tell someone but the person did not take it seriously, or they were accused of lying. Many victims say they tried to tell someone but no one would listen - meaning the parent did not pick up what the child was saying. Kids don't tell for fear of not being believed. Many feel more comfortable telling authority figures than their own parents. Keeping the abuse within the family is not a good idea and one that only serves the perpetrator not the victim.
Moving an abuser to another location. To move the offender means he may be able to offend again with people who do not personally know his offending, where as keeping him in a meeting where they know he is an abuser they are more likely to keep an eye on him. Moving the offender just moves the problem. Moving him is for the victim if he offended someone who attends the same meeting - fellowship or Gospel. A victim should not have to be in the same room or location as the offender and he should be moved from that meeting.
I know there are 2 things here, one about moving an offender who may not be within the family and the other when the abuse occurs within the family, but most refers to either situation.
Reading over some of these posts I feel that Clearday and fixit are two who have a good grasp on the topic of CSA.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 16:05:59 GMT -5
DMG:
How did you expect us to interpret the following statement:
It seems that my interpretation of English is different to yours DMG.
'Rather than' to me means an either/or situation.
Did you mean to write:
How about they report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, in addition to them trying to handle the case on their own
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 16:20:50 GMT -5
Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination." Woww, specialists in the field of sexual abuse do not advocate parents acting alone. There are many reasons for this. One is, most parents do not have the skills or knowledge about sexual abuse to know if abuse is occurring. If they did the abuse may not have occurred in the first place. Also, a significant amount of abuse occurs in the home right under the nose of or by the parent. And if a parent was sexually abused themselves they are more likely to go into denial or the opposite, be over protective. Also abusers in the family like to isolate their family, act alone and avoid authority figures. Most parents are not equipped to pick up the signs of sexual abuse until it is too late. How many victims say that they tried to tell someone but the person did not take it seriously, or they were accused of lying. Many victims say they tried to tell someone but no one would listen - meaning the parent did not pick up what the child was saying. Kids don't tell for fear of not being believed. Many feel more comfortable telling authority figures than their own parents. Keeping the abuse within the family is not a good idea and one that only serves the perpetrator not the victim. Moving an abuser to another location. To move the offender means he may be able to offend again with people who do not personally know his offending, where as keeping him in a meeting where they know he is an abuser they are more likely to keep an eye on him. Moving the offender just moves the problem. Moving him is for the victim if he offended someone who attends the same meeting - fellowship or Gospel. A victim should not have to be in the same room or location as the offender and he should be moved from that meeting. I know there are 2 things here, one about moving an offender who may not be within the family and the other when the abuse occurs within the family, but most refers to either situation. Good post Mary. You raise an important point that the folks in the meeting this abuser is sent to must be told the reason for the move. Even if the folks are elderly its always possible they might have grandchildren or other child relatives visiting. Rational's statement is a very bad idea: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination."It helps to explain why it seems like we're trying to push water uphill with a rake. Sadly some parents are a big part of the problem, even though most parents would move mountains to protect their kids. 'It takes a village to raise a child'. Child protection is everyone's business.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 24, 2014 16:27:20 GMT -5
Child protection is everyone's business because families working in isolation has failed our children.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 16:48:54 GMT -5
DMG's post makes perfect sense when you consider a reportable 'case', but the thread wasn't talking about that; it was about non-reportable suspicions and what to do about them. In that case, her suggestion seems quite daft. So ... she wasn't daft, but in the context, she appeared to be daft. In the state I live in "suspicion" is enough to require a report to be submitted by a mandated reporter, and is acceptable grounds for anyone to submit a report. In other states, everyone (not sure about underaged) is considered a mandated reporter and is required to eport suspicions. Why use the word "daft"? Are you interested in resolving any of the misunderstandings, hard feelings and frustrations that have developed here? Others are also using what I consider inflammatory words that imo are unhelpful in this situation. Strategic use of the word. I think if you get what I'm trying to say, it won't concern you.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 16:54:52 GMT -5
I presume this statement was made by Rational above as it is difficult to know which he quotes from other posts and which are his own comments. I know I need to change the colors on my screen so that the differences show up more. Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination." Woww, specialists in the field of sexual abuse do not advocate parents acting alone. There are many reasons for this. One is, most parents do not have the skills or knowledge about sexual abuse to know if abuse is occurring. If they did the abuse may not have occurred in the first place. Also, a significant amount of abuse occurs in the home right under the nose of or by the parent. And if a parent was sexually abused themselves they are more likely to go into denial or the opposite, be over protective. Also abusers in the family like to isolate their family, act alone and avoid authority figures. Most parents are not equipped to pick up the signs of sexual abuse until it is too late. How many victims say that they tried to tell someone but the person did not take it seriously, or they were accused of lying. Many victims say they tried to tell someone but no one would listen - meaning the parent did not pick up what the child was saying. Kids don't tell for fear of not being believed. Many feel more comfortable telling authority figures than their own parents. Keeping the abuse within the family is not a good idea and one that only serves the perpetrator not the victim. Moving an abuser to another location. To move the offender means he may be able to offend again with people who do not personally know his offending, where as keeping him in a meeting where they know he is an abuser they are more likely to keep an eye on him. Moving the offender just moves the problem. Moving him is for the victim if he offended someone who attends the same meeting - fellowship or Gospel. A victim should not have to be in the same room or location as the offender and he should be moved from that meeting. I know there are 2 things here, one about moving an offender who may not be within the family and the other when the abuse occurs within the family, but most refers to either situation. Reading over some of these posts I feel that Clearday and fixit are two who have a good grasp on the topic of CSA. While I agree with your sage advice as it stands independently, you've illustrated the difficulty of coming into a thread and not fully getting the context. What rational said is that parents acting in the interests of their own children, and also in concert with authorities are the best way to protect children. He was skeptical of anything churches could do as a group, or of the benefit of guidelines. So, rational wasn't really disagreeing with anything you said, from what I can see. Funny though that rational was misquoted out of context, when he and DMG did the same to ClearDay.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 24, 2014 16:58:15 GMT -5
I presume this statement was made by Rational above as it is difficult to know which he quotes from other posts and which are his own comments. I know I need to change the colors on my screen so that the differences show up more. Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination." Woww, specialists in the field of sexual abuse do not advocate parents acting alone. There are many reasons for this. One is, most parents do not have the skills or knowledge about sexual abuse to know if abuse is occurring. If they did the abuse may not have occurred in the first place. Also, a significant amount of abuse occurs in the home right under the nose of or by the parent. And if a parent was sexually abused themselves they are more likely to go into denial or the opposite, be over protective. Also abusers in the family like to isolate their family, act alone and avoid authority figures. Most parents are not equipped to pick up the signs of sexual abuse until it is too late. How many victims say that they tried to tell someone but the person did not take it seriously, or they were accused of lying. Many victims say they tried to tell someone but no one would listen - meaning the parent did not pick up what the child was saying. Kids don't tell for fear of not being believed. Many feel more comfortable telling authority figures than their own parents. Keeping the abuse within the family is not a good idea and one that only serves the perpetrator not the victim. Moving an abuser to another location. To move the offender means he may be able to offend again with people who do not personally know his offending, where as keeping him in a meeting where they know he is an abuser they are more likely to keep an eye on him. Moving the offender just moves the problem. Moving him is for the victim if he offended someone who attends the same meeting - fellowship or Gospel. A victim should not have to be in the same room or location as the offender and he should be moved from that meeting. I know there are 2 things here, one about moving an offender who may not be within the family and the other when the abuse occurs within the family, but most refers to either situation. Reading over some of these posts I feel that Clearday and fixit are two who have a good grasp on the topic of CSA. While I agree with your sage advice as it stands independently, you've illustrated the difficulty of coming into a thread and not fully getting the context. What rational said is that parents acting in the interests of their own children, and also in concert with authorities are the best way to protect children. He was skeptical of anything churches could do as a group, or of the benefit of guidelines. So, rational wasn't really disagreeing with anything you said. Funny though that you did this to rational, when he and DMG did the same to ClearDay. ...and Clearday did it too.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 17:07:07 GMT -5
The big picture is that your strategy for handling CSA is unworkable. That's really all Clearday said. Using his understanding of what I said I think he believed that.My plan was to report the individual that people suspected might abuse children to the authorities. I said nothing more than that. I never stated, as implied countless times, that the parents should do nothing else. I did not have the idea of turning over the parenting of the children to the authorities. I simply stated that moving the suspected individual to a different meeting location was not a wise solution given the ad vice of every child protection agency in the world.And see, there you already have a false premise in the mix. Not believing that the suspect should be moved to a different location for meeting does not equal doing nothing. First and foremost, it has always been my stance for almost 20,000 posts on this message board alone, that the parents are responsible for the safety of their children.No, I am not in favor of a group being responsible for the safety of children. Churches and other organizations have not done a stellar job protecting children. But not being in favor of the parents acting as a group does not imply in any way that I believe the parents should do nothing. I believe they should not take the one step that was proposed but that does not imply they do nothing. People acting in groups is where the cracks form and where the result is abused children.Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination. You might feel safe because the workers have a published guideline regarding child abuse but I would not be at all comfortable with that. I commented extensively on the guidelines and voiced my disagreement with some aspects when they were being developed. Any additional comments at this time could be seen as undermining what I believe, in spite of what I consider flaws, to be a very good start. Which brings me back to the point that the big picture you construct from flawed details is not accurate and, when the big picture is said to reflect the ideas and beliefs of the individual to whom the flawed details have been attributed, there is bound to be feed back. In outline form: 1) I believe that if someone is suspected of being a threat to children they should be reported to the authorities. 2) I do not believe that moving a suspected individual to a different meeting location is the solution or a prudent decision. Those are the two points. And from those Clearday, and now you, have drawn your own conclusion that I thought the parents of the children should do nothing and my idea was to turn over the parenting to the authorities. There are so many things that parents could do instead of moving the person to a new meeting location that it seems silly to mention them - warn their children of what type of contact avoid having with the individual, tell the individual of the type of contact with which they are comfortable, closely monitor their children before, during, and after the meeting, etc., etc. That's a pretty good post. I don't agree with all of it, but the points I disagree with, regarding the efficacy of "safe church" policies and guidelines are arguable points. I think if you had laid all that out in the previous thread, you probably would have had a constructive dialogue instead of what did happen. (And that's not meant to blame you, but with your critical approach it's sometimes hard to see where you're coming from.)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 17:22:36 GMT -5
I presume this statement was made by Rational above as it is difficult to know which he quotes from other posts and which are his own comments. I know I need to change the colors on my screen so that the differences show up more. Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination."Woww, specialists in the field of sexual abuse do not advocate parents acting alone. There are many reasons for this. One is, most parents do not have the skills or knowledge about sexual abuse to know if abuse is occurring. If they did the abuse may not have occurred in the first place. Also, a significant amount of abuse occurs in the home right under the nose of or by the parent. And if a parent was sexually abused themselves they are more likely to go into denial or the opposite, be over protective. Also abusers in the family like to isolate their family, act alone and avoid authority figures. Most parents are not equipped to pick up the signs of sexual abuse until it is too late. How many victims say that they tried to tell someone but the person did not take it seriously, or they were accused of lying. Many victims say they tried to tell someone but no one would listen - meaning the parent did not pick up what the child was saying. Kids don't tell for fear of not being believed. Many feel more comfortable telling authority figures than their own parents. Keeping the abuse within the family is not a good idea and one that only serves the perpetrator not the victim. Moving an abuser to another location. To move the offender means he may be able to offend again with people who do not personally know his offending, where as keeping him in a meeting where they know he is an abuser they are more likely to keep an eye on him. Moving the offender just moves the problem. Moving him is for the victim if he offended someone who attends the same meeting - fellowship or Gospel. A victim should not have to be in the same room or location as the offender and he should be moved from that meeting. I know there are 2 things here, one about moving an offender who may not be within the family and the other when the abuse occurs within the family, but most refers to either situation. Reading over some of these posts I feel that Clearday and fixit are two who have a good grasp on the topic of CSA. First of all are you sure that quote is from Rational? "Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination."
It is NOT like something he would say what he say.
I noticed it as well but I think it was actually under someone else's post.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 17:22:59 GMT -5
While I agree with your sage advice as it stands independently, you've illustrated the difficulty of coming into a thread and not fully getting the context. What rational said is that parents acting in the interests of their own children, and also in concert with authorities are the best way to protect children. He was skeptical of anything churches could do as a group, or of the benefit of guidelines. So, rational wasn't really disagreeing with anything you said. Funny though that you did this to rational, when he and DMG did the same to ClearDay. ...and Clearday did it too. You mean - misinterpret what someone else is saying? I suppose we all do it to some extent. However, I thought his main crime was inaccurate synthesis. My working hypothesis is that he gets frustrated at some point, and then tries for a dramatic smackdown, but tries to keep it civil. For example, instead of saying "It is almost shocking that you and rational advise placing the protection of children on the authorities. ", he might have said, "Your strategy for handling CSA is stooo-pid", but that would be very general and uncivil. This last comment isn't in relation to anyone's actual strategy, just to how things appeared at the moment Clearday made this comment. I just wonder if you think this description would fit some of the apparent misrepresentations you have encountered. Incidentally, I don't think this is really a misrepresentation so much as a summary conclusion or inference, as I've said before. One debating technique is to take an opponent's statement to its most extreme and ridiculous conclusion, so it is a bit like that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 17:24:41 GMT -5
I presume this statement was made by Rational above as it is difficult to know which he quotes from other posts and which are his own comments. I know I need to change the colors on my screen so that the differences show up more. Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination."Woww, specialists in the field of sexual abuse do not advocate parents acting alone. There are many reasons for this. One is, most parents do not have the skills or knowledge about sexual abuse to know if abuse is occurring. If they did the abuse may not have occurred in the first place. Also, a significant amount of abuse occurs in the home right under the nose of or by the parent. And if a parent was sexually abused themselves they are more likely to go into denial or the opposite, be over protective. Also abusers in the family like to isolate their family, act alone and avoid authority figures. Most parents are not equipped to pick up the signs of sexual abuse until it is too late. How many victims say that they tried to tell someone but the person did not take it seriously, or they were accused of lying. Many victims say they tried to tell someone but no one would listen - meaning the parent did not pick up what the child was saying. Kids don't tell for fear of not being believed. Many feel more comfortable telling authority figures than their own parents. Keeping the abuse within the family is not a good idea and one that only serves the perpetrator not the victim. Moving an abuser to another location. To move the offender means he may be able to offend again with people who do not personally know his offending, where as keeping him in a meeting where they know he is an abuser they are more likely to keep an eye on him. Moving the offender just moves the problem. Moving him is for the victim if he offended someone who attends the same meeting - fellowship or Gospel. A victim should not have to be in the same room or location as the offender and he should be moved from that meeting. I know there are 2 things here, one about moving an offender who may not be within the family and the other when the abuse occurs within the family, but most refers to either situation. Reading over some of these posts I feel that Clearday and fixit are two who have a good grasp on the topic of CSA. First of all are you sure that quote is from Rational? "Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination."
It is NOT like something he would say what he say.
I noticed it as well but I think it was actually under someone else's post.
You're right; it's not what rational meant, but it's a quote taken out of context. I elaborate in a prior post.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 17:38:40 GMT -5
One can BOTH get the authorities involved AND continue to take care of children within one's sphere of influence. These are not mutually exclusive. And once you contact the authorities, it is then true that you are no longer handling the case on your own.
Think "Both/And" rather than "Either/Or" and some of the conflict in this thread might evaporate.
DMG's post makes perfect sense when you consider a reportable 'case', but the thread wasn't talking about that; it was about non-reportable suspicions and what to do about them. In that case, her suggestion seems quite daft. So ... she wasn't daft, but in the context, she appeared to be daft. If you they had "suspicions" enough to transfer him to another meeting, they had enough to report him to the proper authorities.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 24, 2014 17:58:26 GMT -5
That is what several research papers stated. Peer reviewed. If there are any publications that you can post to refute the data please do. Could you explain how this is relevant to the issue of the prevention of child sexual abuse? Do you have a way of knowing in advance how much a child will be damaged if an offence does occur? I don't let my young kids cross a busy street because I think there is only a 30% chance of getting hit by a car. No one has said it is relevant to the prevention of child abuse. Not me or any of the researchers. There is no way how damaged a person will be but knowing that all people who are abused are not damaged or not all equally damaged could lead to insight regarding their treatment plan, or may determine if any treatment is even required. This again sort of points to the problem with this discussion. No one ever claimed this was a way to determine who would abuse or how much damage an incident would cause. Yet from your question it seems you thought the the research would have some predictive ability. Or determine the damage caused. There were some very general findings. Damage from CSA that involved contact was more likely to cause damage than non-contact CSA. Abuse by a father or father-figure or any penetrating abuse was more likely to cause damage. The University of New Hampshire maintains a data base that shows some interesting statistics. There is substantial information on physical abuse. In some cases. But the data also shows that in some cases the damage was over-estimated. [/quote]This is the problem with child abuse - until it happens it is almost impossible to predict. It is relevant to how the victims are viewed/treated following the abuse.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 18:01:55 GMT -5
DMG's post makes perfect sense when you consider a reportable 'case', but the thread wasn't talking about that; it was about non-reportable suspicions and what to do about them. In that case, her suggestion seems quite daft. So ... she wasn't daft, but in the context, she appeared to be daft. If you they had "suspicions" enough to transfer him to another meeting, they had enough to report him to the proper authorities.
Mandatory reporting is NOT required and probably not advised based on having suspicions about a potential abuser. It's based on having reason to suspect abuse occurring to an abused victim. A review of the wiki survey on mandated reporting clarifies for me, that suspicions based on potential grooming behaviour can not be reported, and yet parents must deal with them somehow in order to prevent abuse in the first place. By the time the perp acts, and abuse is suspected to have occurred, it's too late. IMO, the best course for dealing with suspicions about a perpetrator, or with potential grooming behaviour, is the implementation of 'safe church' guidelines. Then it's clear what is allowed and what is not allowed; parents acting on 'ad hoc' basis based on their personal suspicions really isn't the best way to do things.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 18:07:09 GMT -5
...and Clearday did it too. You mean - misinterpret what someone else is saying? I suppose we all do it to some extent. However, I thought his main crime was inaccurate synthesis. My working hypothesis is that he gets frustrated at some point, and then tries for a dramatic smackdown, but tries to keep it civil. For example, instead of saying "It is almost shocking that you and rational advise placing the protection of children on the authorities. ", he might have said, "Your strategy for handling CSA is stooo-pid", but that would be very general and uncivil. This last comment isn't in relation to anyone's actual strategy, just to how things appeared at the moment Clearday made this comment. I just wonder if you think this description would fit some of the apparent misrepresentations you have encountered. Incidentally, I don't think this is really a misrepresentation so much as a summary conclusion or inference, as I've said before. One debating technique is to take an opponent's statement to its most extreme and ridiculous conclusion, so it is a bit like that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdumMany people are missing the point of what this dialogue is about. People can discuss ad infinitum whether either my advice or CD's advice was the right one. They Have a right to their opinion.
That is not what bothers me.
For me, it was that CD misrepresented of what I said. He made up out of whole cloth a position that I supposed to have held, when I did NOT hold that position.
And it wasn't the first time he had done that.
|
|