[Rich The Philosophizer]

Tom MacIntyre wrote:
LOL

Nah, I blame the drugs

"They" say there's a correlation between being abused as a kid and
being an abuser.

Or is it just that all the convicted child abusers say, "I couldn't help
it - I was an abused kid!"

Did you know that 99.9% of the rapists in prison have eaten potatoes?

I wonder what % of convicted rapists are circumcised.
(yes, bring on the homo jokes, but I'll pass on the upper-decker-pecker-
checker job.)

;^j
Rich

 

[Clarence]

Plonk!

 

[Terry Given]

Clarence wrote:

<unsnip>
OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to
discussion) from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets
killed?

news:[email protected]...

OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to discussion)
from playing chicken in traffic.
Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets killed?

Plonk!

I take it that means you have no answer. Hardly surprising.

Terry

 

[Terry Given]

"They" say there's a correlation between being abused as a kid and
being an abuser.

What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and child
abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused as
children than non-schizophrenics

Or is it just that all the convicted child abusers say, "I couldn't help
it - I was an abused kid!"

Exactly the sort of critical thinking that social workers are incapable
of. A good statistician ought to ask that question though.

Did you know that 99.9% of the rapists in prison have eaten potatoes?

I wonder what % of convicted rapists are circumcised.
(yes, bring on the homo jokes, but I'll pass on the upper-decker-pecker-
checker job.)

;^j
Rich

Something like 75% of paedophiles are left-handed.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Clarence]

Clarence wrote:

AND A top poster!
You ARE REALLY low!
But I do not discuss discipline with anyone who approves of beating children!
You did say Corporal, didn't you?

I take it that means you have no answer. Hardly surprising.

Terry

DO YOU have any shame?

I didn't think so!

 

[Clarence]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:


Something like 75% of paedophiles are left-handed.
Cheers
Terry

So your left handed too? Figures!

 

[Robert Monsen]

What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and child
abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused as
children than non-schizophrenics

Where does this statistic come from?

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

I didnt justify anything, I merely posed a real scenario and asked a
question. YOU suggested beating & chaining in a basement.


and yet you are. Hmm.


OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to
discussion) from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets
killed?

I'd get him inside before smacking him, if I was going to smack him
at all, but all that would teach him is that he lets himself get
captured and dragged inside, he's going to get smacked.

I'd wonder, this whole scenario is a little bizarre. Fenced and locked the
yard, locked his room, yet at 4 Years old, he escapes, and goes and does
what he wants anyway. What's wrong with that picture in the first place?

It sounds to me like what the kid needs is medical attention. And his
parents, probably even more so.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

Plonk!

Uh-oh! Bad boy! You're being punished by Clarence!

Call if you need any moral support. Like if that makes you want a drink
or anything, I'll join you.

;^j
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

What a lying sack of shit.

You claimed that you plonked him.

When they were handing out brains, you said "Stuff 'em up your ass."

It'd be laughable, if it wasn't so fucking pathetic.

 

[Terry Given]

I'd get him inside before smacking him, if I was going to smack him
at all, but all that would teach him is that he lets himself get
captured and dragged inside, he's going to get smacked.

I'd wonder, this whole scenario is a little bizarre. Fenced and locked the
yard, locked his room, yet at 4 Years old, he escapes, and goes and does
what he wants anyway. What's wrong with that picture in the first place?

honestly, there were several detailed write-ups on this little terrors
family. A couple of normal kids, seemingly normal middle-class parents -
but he was a right tearaway, and really did smash a window to escape.
And it wasnt the first time. IIRC he escaped the yard by piling up
various items in the yard before clambering over the fence - several
papers referred to him as a little houdini. It was pretty obvious the
kid was hell-bent on playing with traffic.

It sounds to me like what the kid needs is medical attention. And his
parents, probably even more so.

Thanks,
Rich

The parents were extremely upset - they said they had tried everything,
and it just didnt work. Smacking was their last resort.

It is quite possible the kid has some chemical problems - perhaps diet
related, perhaps genetic, who knows. I dont know that SSRI's are the
solution to these sorts of problems though - they just convince kids to
kill themselves.

I forget the outcome of the story - I suspect the kid just got drugged
senseless.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

AND A top poster!
You ARE REALLY low!
But I do not discuss discipline with anyone who approves of beating children!
You did say Corporal, didn't you?




DO YOU have any shame?

I didn't think so!

You still dont have an answer; instead you deflect the question with
sophistry ie top-posting. Nor do you appear able to read:

"who has yet to smack his 9-year-old daughter" should be a bit of a
giveaway. I do not approve of beating children.


Terry

 

[Terry Given]

Where does this statistic come from?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnew...subsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest

to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no disorder,
to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Tim Wescott]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnew...subsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest


to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no disorder,
to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Cheers
Terry

Of course it can't possibly by that insanity runs in families, and
psychotic parents are much more to abuse their kids.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

Of course it can't possibly by that insanity runs in families, and
psychotic parents are much more to abuse their kids.

I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

Indeed. A strong correlation suggests no more than that closer
examination is required. It certainly does not imply causality.

But OTOH, look at the sorts of correlations used to OK medicines - as
long as the response rate is as good as or a bit better than placebos,
then its good enough. 15:1 is a hell of a correlation!

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.

Cheers!
Rich

Cheers
Terry

 

[Tim Wescott]

Of course it can't possibly by that insanity runs in families, and
psychotic parents are much more to abuse their kids.

"likely to". Please insert it in the statement above where it makes the
most sense.

 

[Tim Wescott]

I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.

I hope you're being sarcastic about the smoking comment.

Yes, it's a correlation with no causality indicated in the data
presented in the news report. Either the workers only found correlation
and just assumed a causal link, or there was more research than is being
reported.

Whenever you're dealing with humans it makes the double blind
experiments hard to get by the ethics panels.

 

[Robert Monsen]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnew...subsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest


to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no disorder,
to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Cheers
Terry

Thanks. They appear to be talking about sexual abuse, not physical abuse
such as spanking.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Terry Given]

Thanks. They appear to be talking about sexual abuse, not physical abuse
such as spanking.

yeah, "sexually abused" was a dead giveaway. I thought the correlation
was interesting, and quite marked.

And of course the whole argument about physically disciplining children
hinges on what, exactly, constitutes physical abuse. Anti-smacking
advocates tend to highlight horrendous child abuse (usually murder)
cases to make their point that smacking should be banned. They seem to
forget that murder already is, and I have yet to see a kid murdered by
smacking. OTOH I have witnessed plenty of stupid parents hitting their
kids because they cant control themselves. Most common scenario:

mum at a cafe having lunch/coffee with friends, sprogs abound. Adults
talking, kid comes up and says "mum, mum..." mum ignores kid for 5
minutes or so, then screams at kid to be quiet, and gives kid a wallop.

The problem with legislating against things not because they are
inherently bad but because stupid people misuse them, is that it
unnecessarily deprives non-stupid people of options. For example many
stupid people drive drunk & maim others (the US kills what, about 17
9/11's worth of people every year in car crashes - 50,000 or so), so
alcohol should be illegal. Hey, come to think of it, what about
firearms.....surely the number of gun deaths far, far outweighs spanking
deaths...

Cheers
Terry