Re: DiStasio - Perv buggers autistic boys

[Greegor]

LaVonne:
In the midst of your apparent concern for the children
DiStasio molested, you thought it was a good
time to try to spin an insult toward me?

Are you angry at me for posting the story about
DiStasio, and why?

The GAO report has been well known in the
alt.support.child-protective-services thread for
many years now.

Your recent ""discovery"" of it just reveals your ignorance.

But actually, the GAO results might actually HELP
the victims of DiStasio because presently the
Child Protection agencies consider victims of
child abuse, especially child sexual abuse to
be at a MUCH higher risk for becoming OFFENDERS
later in their lives.

They also resist the information presented in the
GAO report, content to maintain their existing
beliefs which justify much more POWER for them
to remove kids based on their faulty disproven BELIEFS.

If the system decided you were the victim of abuse as a child,
later on they would presuppose that you are a child abuser
because of that, citing "cycle of abuse".

How would you or they like that?

Please explain how DiStasio would have supported
anything I say. Admit it LaVonne, there was no logic
to that insult whatsoever, just a stupid insult, right Doctor?

I made no comment about the private NON-PROFIT
status of DiStasio's scam. Is it necessary?




Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> Well, Greegor, since you have recently been posting what you consider to
> be evidence that "The Cycle of Abuse Is Bogus," (your post to aps on
> 8/1), with http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf as a reference, I
> don't know why the incidents described below would disturb you.
>
> Or perhaps you were making the point that since the cycle of abuse is
> bogus, especially in incidents of sexual abuse, there is no reason to be
> concerned about what happened to these children.
>
> And I am sure that you realize this is a private organization.
> Shouldn't parents and private religious organizations experience freedom
> to raise children without interference from "big brother government" and
> "CPS?"
>
> Seems like the good "Brother Pateticus" would be a great supporter of
> your posts.
> LaVonne

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> LaVonne:
> In the midst of your apparent concern for the children
> DiStasio molested, you thought it was a good
> time to try to spin an insult toward me?

You spend most of your time insulting. Can't take it but want to dish it
out?

> Are you angry at me for posting the story about
> DiStasio, and why?

R R R R R...why would she be angry. She pointed out it tends to counter
your GAO nonsense.

> The GAO report has been well known in the
> alt.support.child-protective-services thread for
> many years now.

Yes?

> Your recent ""discovery"" of it just reveals your ignorance.

"Discovery?"

> But actually, the GAO results might actually HELP
> the victims of DiStasio because presently the
> Child Protection agencies consider victims of
> child abuse, especially child sexual abuse to
> be at a MUCH higher risk for becoming OFFENDERS
> later in their lives.

What GAO results. The one that repeated said the issue cannot be
resolved with the current data and deserves more research?

> They also resist the information presented in the
> GAO report, content to maintain their existing
> beliefs which justify much more POWER for them
> to remove kids based on their faulty disproven BELIEFS.

Show the specific information, as I asked you, in the report you refer
to that in fact shows that the Cycle of Sexual Abuse is "bogus."

That was not what was reported, but you go ahead. I'm still waiting for
you to answer me.

> If the system decided you were the victim of abuse as a child,
> later on they would presuppose that you are a child abuser
> because of that, citing "cycle of abuse".

The system doesn't say that. It says that you have more chance of it
than those that haven't been. And that is all the "system" says.

> How would you or they like that?

Likely it would be horrible. So?

> Please explain how DiStasio would have supported
> anything I say. Admit it LaVonne, there was no logic
> to that insult whatsoever, just a stupid insult, right Doctor?

Oh brother, GREG, of all people, is upset over a perceived insult.

> I made no comment about the private NON-PROFIT
> status of DiStasio's scam. Is it necessary?

All comments from the other poster must directly refer to ONLY what you
have posted exactly?

Do YOU wish to have this restraint placed upon YOU, Greg?

As to, "is it necessary?" Yes, of course. It goes to the attempts to
legalized and protect all kinds of ugly abuse of children, not unlike
what goes on in the antiCPS camp and in the head of our long absent Fern
the Plant who defended the practice parents allowing the suspending of
their children in church, and the congregation beating on their naked
bodies with objects.

Fern's position was that it was an intrusion of the state and a
violation of parental rights for CPS to come in and stop it.

Do you agree?

You people are slime, Greg. All of you.

Live with it.

0:->


>
> Carlson LaVonne wrote:
>> Well, Greegor, since you have recently been posting what you consider to
>> be evidence that "The Cycle of Abuse Is Bogus," (your post to aps on
>> 8/1), with http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf as a reference, I
>> don't know why the incidents described below would disturb you.
>>
>> Or perhaps you were making the point that since the cycle of abuse is
>> bogus, especially in incidents of sexual abuse, there is no reason to be
>> concerned about what happened to these children.
>>
>> And I am sure that you realize this is a private organization.
>> Shouldn't parents and private religious organizations experience freedom
>> to raise children without interference from "big brother government" and
>> "CPS?"
>>
>> Seems like the good "Brother Pateticus" would be a great supporter of
>> your posts.
>> LaVonne




>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> LaVonne:
> In the midst of your apparent concern for the children
> DiStasio molested, you thought it was a good
> time to try to spin an insult toward me?

Kane wrote
> You spend most of your time insulting.
> Can't take it but want to dish it out?

Greg wrote
> Are you angry at me for posting the story about
> DiStasio, and why?

Kane wrote
> R R R R R...why would she be angry. She pointed out it
> tends to counter your GAO nonsense.

How does the DiStasio case COUNTER the GAO report?

Greg wrote
> > The GAO report has been well known in the
> > alt.support.child-protective-services thread for
> > many years now.

Kane wrote
> Yes?

Greg wrote
> Your recent ""discovery"" of it just reveals your ignorance.

Kane wrote
> "Discovery?"

Well, Kane, I did ask you to inform LaVonne about
the GAO report and the results, but you just HAD
to force me to trot it out for her. Happy now?
LaVonne could have looked it up also.
Might I suggest a reason why she did not Google it?

Greg wrote
> But actually, the GAO results might actually HELP
> the victims of DiStasio because presently the
> Child Protection agencies consider victims of
> child abuse, especially child sexual abuse to
> be at a MUCH higher risk for becoming OFFENDERS
> later in their lives.

Kane wrote
> What GAO results. The one that repeated said the issue cannot be
> resolved with the current data and deserves more research?

Analysis of multiple studies showed NO CORRELATION.
The means affirmative statements about it were FALSE!
Textbooks asserting it were in fact telling LIES.
There was NO CORRELATION.


Greg wrote
> They also resist the information presented in the
> GAO report, content to maintain their existing
> beliefs which justify much more POWER for them
> to remove kids based on their faulty disproven BELIEFS.

Kane wrote
> Show the specific information, as I asked you, in the report you refer
> to that in fact shows that the Cycle of Sexual Abuse is "bogus."

Have you actually READ the report? :)

Kane wrote
> That was not what was reported, but you go ahead. I'm still waiting for
> you to answer me.

Lack of proof from multiple studies is in this case a disproof.
There is a LACK OF STATISTICAL CORRELATION.

That is NOT inconclusive. Nice try.

It shows that affirmative statements were lies.
Textbooks and workers asserting the "cycle of abuse"
had no statistical basis. Their assertion was false.

Greg wrote
> If the system decided you were the victim of abuse as a child,
> later on they would presuppose that you are a child abuser
> because of that, citing "cycle of abuse".

Kane wrote
> The system doesn't say that. It says that you have more chance of it
> than those that haven't been. And that is all the "system" says.

Even when they use it to assert "AT RISK OF" to remove a child?

Greg wrote
> How would you or they like that?

Kane wrote
> Likely it would be horrible. So?

WHY are you answering for LaVonne?
Do you think Doctor LaVonne Carlson incapable of answering?

Greg wrote
> Please explain how DiStasio would have supported
> anything I say. Admit it LaVonne, there was no logic
> to that insult whatsoever, just a stupid insult, right Doctor?

Kane wrote
> Oh brother, GREG, of all people, is upset over a perceived insult.

Was the insult worthy of
Professor LaVonne Carlson of the University of Minnesota?

Greg wrote
> I made no comment about the private NON-PROFIT
> status of DiStasio's scam. Is it necessary?

Kane wrote
> All comments from the other poster must directly
> refer to ONLY what you have posted exactly?

Asking me questions about things you IMAGINE
I said is as goofy as the complaints about things
I did not speak out against!

> Do YOU wish to have this restraint placed upon YOU, Greg?

That's not up to you!

Kane wrote
> As to, "is it necessary?" Yes, of course. It goes to the attempts to
> legalized and protect all kinds of ugly abuse of children, not unlike
> what goes on in the antiCPS camp and in the head of our long absent Fern
> the Plant who defended the practice parents allowing the suspending of
> their children in church, and the congregation beating on their naked
> bodies with objects.
> Fern's position was that it was an intrusion of the state and a
> violation of parental rights for CPS to come in and stop it.
> Do you agree?
> You people are slime, Greg. All of you.
> Live with it.

Yer a freakin' nut case Kane!
Asking me to agree with your personal
puke about a person who is not here?
The "siege mentality" stuff is hilarious!





Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> Well, Greegor, since you have recently been posting what you consider to
> be evidence that "The Cycle of Abuse Is Bogus," (your post to aps on
> 8/1), with http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf as a reference, I
> don't know why the incidents described below would disturb you.
>
> Or perhaps you were making the point that since the cycle of abuse is
> bogus, especially in incidents of sexual abuse, there is no reason to be
> concerned about what happened to these children.
>
> And I am sure that you realize this is a private organization.
> Shouldn't parents and private religious organizations experience freedom
> to raise children without interference from "big brother government" and
> "CPS?"
>
> Seems like the good "Brother Pateticus" would be a great supporter of
> your posts.
> LaVonne

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> LaVonne:
>> In the midst of your apparent concern for the children
>> DiStasio molested, you thought it was a good
>> time to try to spin an insult toward me?
>
> Kane wrote
>> You spend most of your time insulting.
>> Can't take it but want to dish it out?
>
> Greg wrote
>> Are you angry at me for posting the story about
>> DiStasio, and why?
>
> Kane wrote
>> R R R R R...why would she be angry. She pointed out it
>> tends to counter your GAO nonsense.
>
> How does the DiStasio case COUNTER the GAO report?

It does not support that the cycle of sexual abuse is bogus. 0:->
>
> Greg wrote
>>> The GAO report has been well known in the
>>> alt.support.child-protective-services thread for
>>> many years now.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Yes?
>
> Greg wrote
>> Your recent ""discovery"" of it just reveals your ignorance.
>
> Kane wrote
>> "Discovery?"
>
> Well, Kane, I did ask you to inform LaVonne about
> the GAO report and the results, but you just HAD
> to force me to trot it out for her.

You have your time line confused.

> Happy now?

Of course. Any time I can get you to back your claims with evidence,
even that fails to do so, is a great day for Usenet, Greg.

> LaVonne could have looked it up also.

How do you know she did not?

> Might I suggest a reason why she did not Google it?

How do you know she not already is familiar with and possibly has copy
or link to a copy already. She seems to know what I know, by that same
means.

I read this report many years ago, Greg. I know what it says and doesn't
say.

> Greg wrote
>> But actually, the GAO results might actually HELP
>> the victims of DiStasio because presently the
>> Child Protection agencies consider victims of
>> child abuse, especially child sexual abuse to
>> be at a MUCH higher risk for becoming OFFENDERS
>> later in their lives.
>
> Kane wrote
>> What GAO results. The one that repeated said the issue cannot be
>> resolved with the current data and deserves more research?
>
> Analysis of multiple studies showed NO CORRELATION.

You are claiming this. You are not quoting and citing it appropriately.
You are a past master..well, mini-doan-dougie, at talking about
something, rather than actually providing explicit copies of the
relevant information, data, analysis, what-have-you.

> The means affirmative statements about it were FALSE!

They were neither proven nor disprove. That was the point and I
specifically annotated that in YOUR provided copy.

> Textbooks asserting it were in fact telling LIES.

Were does it say that?

> There was NO CORRELATION.

Quote chapter and verse as I asked you to...in other words point
directly to the statements IN the report that you believe says that.

> Greg wrote
>> They also resist the information presented in the
>> GAO report, content to maintain their existing
>> beliefs which justify much more POWER for them
>> to remove kids based on their faulty disproven BELIEFS.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Show the specific information, as I asked you, in the report you refer
>> to that in fact shows that the Cycle of Sexual Abuse is "bogus."
>
> Have you actually READ the report? :)

Yes, and that is why I am asking you to support your claims with the
exact wording, quoted, and pointed to in the document.

> Kane wrote
>> That was not what was reported, but you go ahead. I'm still waiting for
>> you to answer me.
>
> Lack of proof from multiple studies is in this case a disproof.
> There is a LACK OF STATISTICAL CORRELATION.

Where did you get the idea that lack of proof shows disproof? NO
reputable scientist would make such a claim.

Point to the place in the report that says that, or supports
that...specifically not your opinion of what it says or means.
>
> That is NOT inconclusive. Nice try.

Of course it is. I pointed it out to you repeated through out the
document by my annotations of the document YOU supplied, the Report.

At NO point did it say that there IS no cycle of abuse related to sexual
abuse...and in fact it admitted there may well be.

> It shows that affirmative statements were lies.

It shows they might have been mistaken. You and Doan, both, confirmed
and repeated liars constantly pull this crap claiming lies even when
someone has admitted to a mistake. YOU are liars, Greg.

It shows that the research is at this time inconclusive. Do you know
what that word means?

> Textbooks and workers asserting the "cycle of abuse"
> had no statistical basis. Their assertion was false.

Point to the place where the report says that. YOUR opinion is worth
very little in this debate, as you are highly subjective on this matter.

> Greg wrote
>> If the system decided you were the victim of abuse as a child,
>> later on they would presuppose that you are a child abuser
>> because of that, citing "cycle of abuse".
>
> Kane wrote
>> The system doesn't say that. It says that you have more chance of it
>> than those that haven't been. And that is all the "system" says.
>
> Even when they use it to assert "AT RISK OF" to remove a child?

Please establish that this and this alone has been used as reason to
remove...and not anecdotal claims by anti-CPS shills or abusive parents
that are lying.

PROVE IT.

Show records. Show findings in court. Provide unbiased reports.

>
> Greg wrote
>> How would you or they like that?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Likely it would be horrible. So?
>
> WHY are you answering for LaVonne?

Because I have an opinion?

> Do you think Doctor LaVonne Carlson incapable of answering?

How does my giving you my opinion and rebuttal to your bull**** stop
LaVonne from responding?

You have the most colorful and creative delusions, Greg.

> Greg wrote
>> Please explain how DiStasio would have supported
>> anything I say. Admit it LaVonne, there was no logic
>> to that insult whatsoever, just a stupid insult, right Doctor?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Oh brother, GREG, of all people, is upset over a perceived insult.
>
> Was the insult worthy of
> Professor LaVonne Carlson of the University of Minnesota?

I think she's a lamer when it comes to flaming, Greg. But then that's
not what I value about LaVonne. She is obviously trained in research and
you are not. One does not win a doctorate without certain
procedures...one of which is a doctoral dissertation. Which must be
defended against a panel of "skeptics" that will attack it from all angles.

Fail to argue in defense successfully and no doctorate is awarded. You
lose.

> Greg wrote
>> I made no comment about the private NON-PROFIT
>> status of DiStasio's scam. Is it necessary?
>
> Kane wrote
>> All comments from the other poster must directly
>> refer to ONLY what you have posted exactly?
>
> Asking me questions about things you IMAGINE
> I said is as goofy as the complaints about things
> I did not speak out against!

Well, LaVonne asked you a question and did NOT imagine you said. She
asked you a question in logical sequence.

"And I am sure that you realize this is a private organization.
Shouldn't parents and private religious organizations experience freedom
to raise children without interference from "big brother government" and
"CPS?"

And set the procedure clearly. Or do you NOT know this is a private
organization, and the question matches YOUR value system.

Can't answer?

Gregg, if you set yourself up as some kind of moral guardian and
crusader against CPS abuses and you make excuses for or do NOT stand up
against lies ABOUT CPS you destroy your own credibility.

I would not think of letting YOU lie about a parent, even if it agreed
with what you think is my bias.
>
>> Do YOU wish to have this restraint placed upon YOU, Greg?
>
> That's not up to you!

R R R ...well then, it's not up to you to set the guidelines for what
others may post, stupid.

> Kane wrote
>> As to, "is it necessary?" Yes, of course. It goes to the attempts to
>> legalized and protect all kinds of ugly abuse of children, not unlike
>> what goes on in the antiCPS camp and in the head of our long absent Fern
>> the Plant who defended the practice parents allowing the suspending of
>> their children in church, and the congregation beating on their naked
>> bodies with objects.
>> Fern's position was that it was an intrusion of the state and a
>> violation of parental rights for CPS to come in and stop it.
>> Do you agree?
>> You people are slime, Greg. All of you.
>> Live with it.
>
> Yer a freakin' nut case Kane!
> Asking me to agree with your personal
> puke about a person who is not here?
> The "siege mentality" stuff is hilarious!

I have no siege mentality.

You were present during all of Ferns more colorful nuttiness...you let
it slide because it agreed with your garbage thinking.

I asked you if you agreed.

YOU have asked me questions about things long passed, like the GOA report.

What would be the difference?

So did you agree with Fern, or do you now agree, that CPS has no
business interfering in cases like the one Fern defended the parents
in...the hanging up and beating in church?

Such a simple question. And you can't answer it.

Because you are a moral cretin.

>
>
> Carlson LaVonne wrote:
>> Well, Greegor, since you have recently been posting what you consider to
>> be evidence that "The Cycle of Abuse Is Bogus," (your post to aps on
>> 8/1), with http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf as a reference, I
>> don't know why the incidents described below would disturb you.
>>
>> Or perhaps you were making the point that since the cycle of abuse is
>> bogus, especially in incidents of sexual abuse, there is no reason to be
>> concerned about what happened to these children.
>>
>> And I am sure that you realize this is a private organization.
>> Shouldn't parents and private religious organizations experience freedom
>> to raise children without interference from "big brother government" and
>> "CPS?"
>>
>> Seems like the good "Brother Pateticus" would be a great supporter of
>> your posts.
>> LaVonne

LaVonne's logic is directly revealing of YOUR rationale in defending
abusive parents, Greg. Figure it out.

And go to my post where I replied to you with the full GOA report,
annotated by me, and answer the questions I bring up, rather than
dodging by standing back a mile or two and "claiming" it means something
without quoting what it actually says.

It's simple, Greg. Do it. If you can.


Kane



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Greg wrote
> How does the DiStasio case COUNTER the GAO report?

Kane wrote
> It does not support that the cycle of sexual abuse is bogus. 0:->

Are you saying that DiStasio manifested the cycle of violence?
Was he abused or just non-spanked?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greg wrote
>> How does the DiStasio case COUNTER the GAO report?
>
> Kane wrote
>> It does not support that the cycle of sexual abuse is bogus. 0:->
>
> Are you saying that DiStasio manifested the cycle of violence?

I'm saying there is no evidence one way or the other. According to your
logic in claiming the GAO report shows the CSA is bogus, then that
proves SOMETHING. Of course it doesn't. As there IS NO EVIDENCE ONE WAY
OR THE OTHER.

> Was he abused or just non-spanked?

We don't know, but obviously not knowing makes the CSA BOGUS, right?

Wake up, Greg. In an investigation of the presence or absense of
something, where there is considerable doubt as to the claim something
is absent, then it's as likely to exist as not.

You have two problems with your bogus claim. The GAO itself cited
researchers that said SOME evidence is positive of GAO, but there is
insufficient evidence to determine the AMOUNT.

It goes, in one instance cited from 0 to 79 occurrences claimed by
prisoners across the entire demographic.

Neither a yea or a neigh.

But SOME are being reported.

And the evidence that workers and mental health professionals are seeing
with their own eyes is that yes, there is an extremely high incidence of
those founded for sexual abuse CLAIM to have been molested as children.

Some are former CPS clients where case records have shown this to be
true. As long as the information is within a state then it often IS
available. It simply can't be disseminated to other states with
identifying information...and this is a highly mobile society.

One estimate I read recently claims that 83% of all child sexual abuse
is NOT reported. This comes from interviews of ADULTS who claim to have
been molested and they DO show the psychological scars and typical life
patterns associated with severe abuse.

You need to have someone read the GAO report out loud, OR respond to my
challenges and questions in the annotated copy I returned by reply to
your posting of it.

YOU, show US where it conclusively states, or proves, that the CSA is
in fact bogus, does not exist, and therefore can be discounted as an
indicator in investigations.

And further, prove your allegation that this CSA and this alone in CPS
cases commonly results in removal of children.

If you find A case, then you have found A case that was not good
casework and you are right for ONE case. That does not make an argument
for CPS being universally EVIL, as you appear to have claimed for years.

Your turn at bat, stupid.

Don't strike out again.

0:->





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane/LaVonne: Do you both have reading comprehension problems?

GAO found that: (1) there was no consensus among the 23 retrospective
and 2 prospective studies reviewed that childhood sexual abuse led
directly to the victim becoming an adult sexual abuser; (2) the
retrospective studies, which sought to determine whether a sample of
known sex offenders had been sexually abused as children, differed
considerably in the types of offenders studied, use of control or
comparison groups, and definition and reporting of childhood sexual
abuse; (3) although some of the retrospective studies concluded that
childhood sexual abuse may increase the risk that victims will commit
sexual abuse later, most of the studies noted that the majority of sex
offenders had not been sexually abused as children; (4) the prospective
studies, which tracked sexually abused children into adulthood to
determine how many became sex offenders, studied sample populations
that
may not be representative of the entire population of childhood sexual
abuse victims; and (5) the prospective studies found that victims of
childhood sexual abuse were not more likely than nonvictims to be
arrested for sex offenses.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane/LaVonne: Do you both have reading comprehension problems?

Nope.

What is see is that you did NOT provide a link to the source, with a
reference to where in the long document this is located.

YOU, Greg, just like all the **** peddlers before you, have taken a
statement out of context.

The point of the report is that there is highly contradictory
"findings," as this is countered by OTHER sections of the same report.
>
> GAO found that: (1) there was no consensus among the 23 retrospective
> and 2 prospective studies reviewed that childhood sexual abuse led
> directly to the victim becoming an adult sexual abuser; (2) the
> retrospective studies, which sought to determine whether a sample of
> known sex offenders had been sexually abused as children, differed
> considerably in the types of offenders studied, use of control or
> comparison groups, and definition and reporting of childhood sexual
> abuse;

You recall, do you not, the thread with a title bringing into question
your ability to understand research data? There is a great example.

Do you know what it means in research when the population demographic is
described as "differed considerably in the types of offenders studied,
use of control or comparison groups, and definition and reporting of
childhood sexual abuse;?"

It means the conclusions are bogus. You cannot conclude there is any
standing for your claim because such a population being studies has too
many variables that are NOT controlled for: types of offenders, use of
control and comparison groups, and variations in the very definition of
child sexual abuse, and in HOW SUCH ABUSE WAS REPORTED.

In other word, THIS REPORT BY THE GAO TELLS CONGRESS THAT THERE IS NO
PROOF THERE ISN'T SUCH A CONNECTION OF ABUSE TO LATER ABUSE BY THE VICTIM.

(3) although some of the retrospective studies concluded that
> childhood sexual abuse may increase the risk that victims will commit
> sexual abuse later, most of the studies noted that the majority of sex
> offenders had not been sexually abused as children;

What does "some" mean to you, Greg? As in "some of the studies concluded
that childhood sexual abuse may increase the risk...etc.?"

Coupled with MOST of the studies noting, etc. means SOME DID NOT SO NOTE
SO INDEED SOME OFFENDERS WERE IN FACT SEXUALLY ABUSED AS CHILDREN.

Can you HEAR ME FROM OVER IN DELUSIONAL LAND?

(4) the prospective
> studies, which tracked sexually abused children into adulthood to
> determine how many became sex offenders, studied sample populations
> that
> may not be representative of the entire population of childhood sexual
> abuse victims;

Have a 10 year old read the above aloud to you and explain it.

> and (5) the prospective studies found that victims of
> childhood sexual abuse were not more likely than nonvictims to be
> arrested for sex offenses.

In other words NO NUMBERS, and a strong likelihood that their are SOME.
"Not more likely, " also means THAT SOME WERE IN FACT. And the number
isn't provided.

When I first read this report many years ago it was the subject of a
critical reasoning discussion in seminar. We laughed a great deal over
what it does NOT say, and what it says that really says NOTHING.

It does NOT support that the CSA is bogus...only that it is not proven
to be a "particular" number for the simple reason that is obvious from
the study...the ONE CLEAR THING IT DOES ESTABLISH....no target group
that allows for controlling the variables exists for study that will
give a definitive answer to the question, 'Does childhood sexual abuse
indicate that there is SOME propensity for the adult to repeat the abuse
on others.'

You are in denial. You have been for a long time. It makes you say
things that are unsupportable, and make claims that are outrageously
delusional.

Celebrate, because you are part of a pack of such people that lack the
capacity for critical thinking and rely on their emotional needs to
guide them.

If it doesn't criticize CPS then obviously it cannot be true, .... that
seems to be your guiding principle.

If you don't think so, take a day off and read your posting history. You
are a brainless ranter, laughed at here, and doubtless in court and at
the HWAMC hearing -- if anyone bothered to check the facts you had wrong.

Grow the puck up, Greg. First thing. GET that psych evaluation and get
help. You have a serious thinking error problem that is getting worse by
you seeking out associations in places such as this from people that
have your very problem.

YOU aren't getting support...you are getting dragged down into a very
dangerous state of mind where you cannot reliably judge the factual
world around you. The danger is to YOU.

Wake up NOW!












--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> In other word, THIS REPORT BY THE GAO TELLS CONGRESS THAT THERE IS NO
>> PROOF THERE ISN'T SUCH A CONNECTION OF ABUSE TO LATER ABUSE BY THE VICTIM.
>
> No, it showed that 23 studies all found NO CORRELATION.

And carefully hedged their language and admitted there certainly was a
possibility. And that SOME indeed WAS found.

> It's been 10 years since this report.

Yes, I know.
>
> Poop or get off the pot.

I can't. I'm waiting for you to get off.

>
> With 23 studies all failing to support the social worker RELIGIOUS
> BELIEF,

No, that is not what the studies said. I asked you to post the exact
language. Your insistence on posting YOUR interpretation is sure proof
you are trying to hide something. I suspect, even from yourself.

> I wonder if any more recently have supported the faith?

Well, how about that we know by learning theory alone, FROM PARENTS
THEMSELVES, that modeling is the most powerful of ALL forms of learning.
Approximately 80% of ALL learning is by modeling.

Every parent knows this. And most children do in fact model their
parents and other caregivers.

You can get off now, the pot is full. 0:->

As for your final stupid question, showing you don't really care about
this issue unless it advances YOUR agenda, yes, of course further
studies have shown the connection to abusers having been abused.

And it's not a matter of faith. That is for YOU and your sick cronies.

These are facts.

http://www.whsc.emory.edu/_pubs/em/1999summer/abuse.html

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthandgrowingup/19.childabuseandneglect.aspx

Article supported by research
"References

* Carr, A. (ed) (2000) 'What Works with Children and Adolescents?'
- A Critical Review of Psychological Interventions with Children,
Adolescents and their Families. London: Brunner-Routledge.
* Jones, D. & Ramchandani, P. (1999) 'Child Sexual Abuse -
Informing Practice from Research'. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press.
* Monck, E. & New, M. (1996) 'Sexually Abused Children and
Adolescents who are Treated in Voluntary Community Services'. London:
HMSO. Out of print.
"

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html
It's a much larger issue than our little debate here, Greg. Child abuse
has a monsterous history and we are in the end days of it.

http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Survivors-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.html

"Effects of Child Abuse on Adults: Childhood Sexual Abuse

A history of childhood sexual abuse leads to a lower health-related
quality of life and a greater number of health problems, psychiatric
symptoms and diagnoses. Research shows that survivors of childhood
sexual abuse have "more medical problems, higher medical use, more
physical symptoms, lower health status, and more medical procedures."11
High levels of anxiety and depression in survivors of childhood sexual
abuse can lead to self-destructive behaviors, such as alcohol and drug
abuse.7 Because of the association between sexual behavior and pain and
violation, survivors of childhood sexual abuse often develop problems
with intimate relationships in general, including difficulties during
sexual contact and dysfunctions of desire and arousal.15

In general, childhood sexual abuse is associated with a greater risk of:
Disturbances in sexual interest; Difficulties during sexual contact;
Dysfunctions of desire, arousal or orgasm; Seductive behaviors,
compulsive activity and prostitution; Precocious sexual behavior;
Confusion of sexuality and nurturing behavior; Sexually transmitted
diseases; Unintended pregnancy; Eating disorders; Excessive weight gain;
Depression; Anxiety; Self-destructive behavior; Alcoholism; Drug abuse;
Panic attacks; Insomnia and sleep problems; Relationship problems;
Revictimization; Suicide; Self-mutilation; Increased risk for sexually
transmitted disease; Identity disturbances; and Involvement in
physically abusive relationships as adults.7,11,15"

You might want to go to the site and click on the documents sections and
read a bit.

Now try lying some more. It's amusing.

You IGNORED my posts on the GAO report. You refused to comment on those
sections I had annotated PRECISELY because they proved you claim of the
report showing the Cycle of Abuse to be bogus.

It's not. The research simply was not sufficient at the time, ten years
ago, to show "conclusively." That doesn't mean it's proving there is NO
correlation, stupid little boy.


0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> In other word, THIS REPORT BY THE GAO TELLS CONGRESS THAT THERE IS NO
>> PROOF THERE ISN'T SUCH A CONNECTION OF ABUSE TO LATER ABUSE BY THE VICTIM.
>
> No, it showed that 23 studies all found NO CORRELATION.
>
> It's been 10 years since this report.
>
> Poop or get off the pot.
>
> With 23 studies all failing to support the social worker RELIGIOUS
> BELIEF,
> I wonder if any more recently have supported the faith?

Read up stupid.

http://www.annafoundation.org/wchac-ststs.pdf

From 1999, more recent that the GOA report.

Wake up dummy.

Even YOU know that kids model behavior of others. It's how they learn to
talk, how they learn to read, most often, how they learn to socialize.

No one teaches a child to be social.

And sexual abuse is a SOCIAL interaction.

Children live what they learn by what they experience.

0:->

>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Lots of PASSION eh? Where's the DATA?

[Doan]

On 8 Aug 2006, Greegor wrote:

> Lots of PASSION eh? Where's the DATA?
>
It's in the New England Journal of Medicine! ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Lots of PASSION eh? Where's the DATA?

Cut and run again, Greg?

How is it you could not or would not respond to this:

"Even YOU know that kids model behavior of others. It's how they learn
to talk, how they learn to read, most often, how they learn to socialize.

No one teaches a child to be social.

And sexual abuse is a SOCIAL interaction.

Children live what they learn by what they experience."

Do you deny these things to be true?

Or are you "pretending to deny?" R R R R R R R R

See the little names next to the published data, Greg?

That means YOU to, like the rest of us, can go and look up their studies.

Why have you not, given that it's YOU that claims the cycle of abuse if
bogus.

Use their data to prove it, stupid.

http://www.annafoundation.org/wchac-ststs.pdf
DELINQUENCY, VIOLENCE AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
Reenactment of childhood victimization is the major cause of violence in
our society.
·Numerous-studies have documented that most violent criminals were
physically or sexually abused as
children. (Groth, 1979; Seghorn et al, 1987)
·Over 95% of perpetrators who sexually abuse female children and over
80% of those who abuse male children, are men. Most of these men were
abused themselves in childhood.
(Fergusson & Mullen, 1999)

[[[ ASK FERGUSSON AND MULLEN...read their study. The apparently are
PUBLISHED, which means very likely peer reviewed. The world is waiting
for YOU to grow up, Greg. And do something besides whine and complain
and make insinuations. ]]]

·Children from violent homes are 24 times more likely to commit sexual
assault than their counterparts from
non-violent homes. (Dinzinger, 1996)
·Of 14 juveniles condemned to death for murder in the US in 1987, 12 had
been brutally physically abused
and five had been sodomized by relatives as children. (Lewis et al, 1998)
·A study of convicted killers reports 83.8% suffered severe physical and
emotional abuse and 32.2% were
sexually violated as children. (Blake, 1995)


http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/5/416

Now rather than CLAIMING the GAO report says something, quote the exact
wording and where in the document you found it.

Let US read it, not listen to your bogus interpretations.

Then, Greg, provide YOUR proof that the Cycle of Abuse is bogus.

Where are the studies supporting this claim?

What do they say exactly?

Cite them as to source as well as quoting.

Or continue to be a little whininng child you have been here for years.

0:->






--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane,
In Regard to ersatz ""Cycle of Abuse"" GAO disproved:

What amount of pedantic explanations do you think
substitutes for hard data?

Without the HARD DATA your claptrap is nothing
but another case where seductive reasoning
became accepted as fact and placed in various
Social Work and psychology text books.

Just because something dogmatic SOUNDS
reasonable does not make it truth.

Without the HARD DATA it's just a well organized
""RELIGION"", right mister atheist?

Greegor wrote:
> Lots of PASSION eh? Where's the DATA?

Kane wrote
> Cut and run again, Greg?
<snip!>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane,
> In Regard to ersatz ""Cycle of Abuse"" GAO disproved:
>
> What amount of pedantic explanations do you think
> substitutes for hard data?

When are you going to point to the places in the report that prove there
is NO cycle of abuse?

> Without the HARD DATA your claptrap is nothing
> but another case where seductive reasoning
> became accepted as fact and placed in various
> Social Work and psychology text books.

Just as I thought.

What is your reason for attempting to discredit these fully accepted
fields of study?

> Just because something dogmatic SOUNDS
> reasonable does not make it truth.

That's why I don't go by what "sounds" true, but what IS true.

> Without the HARD DATA it's just a well organized
> ""RELIGION"", right mister atheist?

There's no hard data that schools can teach you anything, Greg. Not a whit.

Yet there they are.

And there's no hard data that you have in fact righted the wrong you did
your fiance/girlfriend/paramour or what ever you are calling her these
days.

> Greegor wrote:
>> Lots of PASSION eh? Where's the DATA?

I have posted references to it repeatedly. If YOU won't go to the
trouble of looking up the studies mentioned then, Greg, YOU are a liar.

> Kane wrote
>> Cut and run again, Greg?
> <snip!>

Cut and run again, Greg, and snip my post?

Coward and liar, Greg. You are a coward and liar.

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Greegor wrote:
> > Kane,
> > In Regard to ersatz ""Cycle of Abuse"" GAO disproved:
> >
> > What amount of pedantic explanations do you think
> > substitutes for hard data?
>
> When are you going to point to the places in the report that prove there
> is NO cycle of abuse?
>
Isn't that proving a negative?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Kane,
>>> In Regard to ersatz ""Cycle of Abuse"" GAO disproved:
>>>
>>> What amount of pedantic explanations do you think
>>> substitutes for hard data?
>> When are you going to point to the places in the report that prove there
>> is NO cycle of abuse?
>>
> Isn't that proving a negative?


That's what he's claiming. It's up to him to notice that.

There is considerable research on the issue of abuse creating more abuse
perpetrated by the adult who was abused as a child.

I've pointed him to it. He refused to read the proof of a positive.

He claims the GOA study PROVES a negative. "it's bogus," is his claim.

"There's no etc this etc that," is another.

Let him wrestle with the logical dichotomy.

Or is he your master you've come to rescue, Stupid monkeyboy?
>
> Doan
>

I have treated the results of intergenerational violence and abuse. I
have a small bias toward the records I read, the discussions parents of
adults who talking about abusing their child, and I've seen the results,
in the prisons and the mental health facilities.

It's rare to find a person there, in any of these facilities, that has
NOT been abused as a child. Usually they are neurologically impaired in
some way, and their symptoms are violent reactivity. That is EXTREMELY
rare, and the chronically mentally ill take a hit for the ignorance of
the public and ignorant assholes like you and Greg trying to foist your
garbage on the community...even if only here.

0;->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Social Workers and Psychologists are all taught
about a "Cycle of Abuse". It's in every textbook
and yet there has never been any proof that it
actually EXISTS. The GAO surveyed 23 studies
and found that none proved the Cycle Of Abuse exists.

Like a religion though, they all BELIEVE that
it exists completely without any DATA to support
the existance of the "Cycle of Abuse".

When new research directly disagrees with
widely held beliefs of Social Workers, some
people delay the appropriate changes pending
"peer review". Old beliefs and practices
apparently got "grandfathered in" and never
had to pass rigorous "peer review".

Workers and courts are now operating based
on the belief in a Cycle of Abuse which has
no basis statistically.

All that is necessary to disprove the application
of Cycle of Abuse is to show the ABSENCE of
any basis for it to have been put into
practice in the first place.

Perhaps the correct language would be
FAILURE TO PROVE Cycle of Abuse, but
considering that 23 studies found
NO CORRELATION to justify the claim of
a "Cycle of Abuse" it is about as close to
""disproven"" as anything gets.
Functionally, since agencies AFFIRM the
Cycle of Abuse in action, all that is necessary
to ""disprove"" it is to show the lack of BASIS.

In essence, the "Cycle Of Abuse" as it is
being USED in PRACTICE is a fraud.
It has no basis statistically.

The burden of proof should NOT be on accused
parents to disprove it, but on the AGENCY to
prove it with stats that apparently DO NOT EXIST.

Unfortunately in Family Courts, the burden of proof
is often twisted around horribly, as if the parents
need to prove they are innocent, rather than
the agency needing to prove guilt.

In this case, where it is being ASSERTED,
the complete LACK of proof, lack of
correlation, or even an INCONCLUSIVE
result is a DISPROOF.

Since the ""Cycle of Abuse" is being ASSERTED,
anything less than clear proof reveals a FRAUD.

I myself have seen a horrible anecdote
that supports the "cycle of abuse" idea,
but I STILL think that presuming it
or even letting it BIAS a decision about
a parents guilt is well beyond a
MISUSE of STATISTICS because the
notion was never statistically proven.

I have even warned parents of kids
who were abused that sometimes
the victims become perpetrators,
not to jump to conclusions but
to be vigilant.

But the way the government nitwits
use this "Cycle Of Abuse" is a gross
injustice.


> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> Kane,
> >>> In Regard to ersatz ""Cycle of Abuse"" GAO disproved:
> >>>
> >>> What amount of pedantic explanations do you think
> >>> substitutes for hard data?

> >> When are you going to point to the places in the report that prove there
> >> is NO cycle of abuse?

> > Isn't that proving a negative?

Cycle of Abuse was never statistically proven to be TRUE!

> That's what he's claiming. It's up to him to notice that.
>
> There is considerable research on the issue of abuse creating more abuse
> perpetrated by the adult who was abused as a child.
>
> I've pointed him to it. He refused to read the proof of a positive.

Kane pointed to lots of prosaic explanation.
That is NOT the same as statistical proof that it's real.

> He claims the GOA study PROVES a negative. "it's bogus," is his claim.

It was never proven TRUE in the first place!
Somebody saw an anecdote and a new ""religion"" was formed.

Kane wrote
> "There's no etc this etc that," is another.
>
> Let him wrestle with the logical dichotomy.
>
> Or is he your master you've come to rescue, Stupid monkeyboy?
> >
> > Doan
> >
>
> I have treated the results of intergenerational violence and abuse. I
> have a small bias toward the records I read, the discussions parents of
> adults who talking about abusing their child, and I've seen the results,
> in the prisons and the mental health facilities.
>
> It's rare to find a person there, in any of these facilities, that has
> NOT been abused as a child. Usually they are neurologically impaired in
> some way, and their symptoms are violent reactivity. That is EXTREMELY
> rare, and the chronically mentally ill take a hit for the ignorance of
> the public and ignorant assholes like you and Greg trying to foist your
> garbage on the community...even if only here.

Kane saw an anecdote so he "got religion" about the
Cycle of Abuse. Apparently he couldn't see past the
anecdote to the HARD DATA.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Social Workers and Psychologists are all taught
> about a "Cycle of Abuse". It's in every textbook
> and yet there has never been any proof that it
> actually EXISTS. The GAO surveyed 23 studies
> and found that none proved the Cycle Of Abuse exists.

One, list the textbooks by name. Otherwise you are guessing, again.

Two, lack of proof does not correlate to the non-existence of something.
If that were so science would have been a dead subject the first time
someone went looking for something they had not experienced yet.

> Like a religion though, they all BELIEVE that
> it exists completely without any DATA to support
> the existance of the "Cycle of Abuse".

What data? You haven't read any data. You are referring to a very old
report...not a study, not scientific, just a review of the documents.

And it did NOT say there was NO proof, but that proof was insufficient
and in some instances indicated there WAS indeed a high correlation.

You are simply lying.

And that is why you do NOT quote the report directly.

> When new research directly disagrees with
> widely held beliefs of Social Workers, some
> people delay the appropriate changes pending
> "peer review".

What new research are you talking about? That report was ten years old.
Thus the "research" reviewed was older. And it did not establish that
the Cycle of Abuse didn't exist. In fact it was heavily weasel worded
(knowing the researchers involved would NOT like their findings
misconstrued as bogus).

I annotated those points in the report, and posted it in reply to you,
Greg, showing that indeed there were more than enough instances of
findings that showed there WAS correlation in childhood abuse to adult
repeating of that abuse.

Read the prisoner portion again.

Some reports found no correlation, and some DID indeed find correlation.

> Old beliefs and practices
> apparently got "grandfathered in" and never
> had to pass rigorous "peer review".

Beliefs and practices aren't subject to professional publication in peer
reviewed journals. "Beliefs and practices" are not "peer reviewed." Only
research is.

See what I mean about you babbling?

> Workers and courts are now operating based
> on the belief in a Cycle of Abuse which has
> no basis statistically.

You are lying. And a great many activities of humans are performed
without statistical basis.

That is not the only criteria.

When clinicians see case after case, nearly all their cases in fact,
where they are dealing with a sex offender and that sex offender was
sexually abused they don't really need a "basis statistically" to
proceed as though that person was sexually abused as a child and
sexually abused others later.

It said so in the GAO report.

> All that is necessary to disprove the application
> of Cycle of Abuse is to show the ABSENCE of
> any basis for it to have been put into
> practice in the first place.

Then show the absence of any basis for it. You have not done so, nor did
the GAO report.

> Perhaps the correct language would be
> FAILURE TO PROVE Cycle of Abuse,

Oh, the weaseling. R R R R R R

It's failure to prove it absence, stupid.

> but
> considering that 23 studies found
> NO CORRELATION to justify the claim of
> a "Cycle of Abuse" it is about as close to
> ""disproven"" as anything gets.

List the studies. Where in the document did it say that?

> Functionally, since agencies AFFIRM the
> Cycle of Abuse in action, all that is necessary
> to ""disprove"" it is to show the lack of BASIS.

"Functionally?"

You mean they keep having clients and patients that have sexually abused
others and themselves were sexually abused as children?

> In essence, the "Cycle Of Abuse" as it is
> being USED in PRACTICE is a fraud.
> It has no basis statistically.

Lack of statistics does not prove fraud, Greg. It's your wishful
thinking and I'm beginning to wonder why you are hung up on this.

> The burden of proof should NOT be on accused
> parents to disprove it,

Correct.

> but on the AGENCY to
> prove it with stats that apparently DO NOT EXIST.

Why must the agency prove in a case where a parent has sexually abused a
child that it must be proven with stats?

All they need is the evidence THIS person did it.

> Unfortunately in Family Courts, the burden of proof
> is often twisted around horribly, as if the parents
> need to prove they are innocent, rather than
> the agency needing to prove guilt.

They do not try people in family court for having been sexually abused
as a child and now likely to sexually abuse.

You are attempting, as always, to insinuate something that is not true.

> In this case,

"Case?" What "case?"

> where it is being ASSERTED,
> the complete LACK of proof, lack of
> correlation, or even an INCONCLUSIVE
> result is a DISPROOF.

In what cases is it being asserted that a parent is guilty of sexually
abusing their child ONLY because they had a history of sexual abuse
themselves?

> Since the ""Cycle of Abuse" is being ASSERTED,
> anything less than clear proof reveals a FRAUD.

The giant lie. The ultimate babble. It's called a strawman fallacious
argument, Greg.

The assertion has to do with a "likelihood." Not guilt, just a
likelihood. No one is convicted of anything for that.

No child is removed simply on the grounds that the parent was sexually
abused as a child.

You and your cronies have created a myth to try and hide the things the
parent ACTUALLY got caught for.

It's the "only clutter" argument now translated to another issue.

> I myself have seen a horrible anecdote
> that supports the "cycle of abuse" idea,
> but I STILL think that presuming it
> or even letting it BIAS a decision about
> a parents guilt is well beyond a
> MISUSE of STATISTICS because the
> notion was never statistically proven.

You haven't seen a damn thing, Greg. You've been fed crap and love the
taste because it agrees with your delusions.

No child has been removed or parental rights lost because they had a
history of being sexually abused.

Prove otherwise.

> I have even warned parents of kids
> who were abused that sometimes
> the victims become perpetrators,
> not to jump to conclusions but
> to be vigilant.

Oh, the you DO BELIEVE IN THE CYCLE OF ABUSE.

In fact, stupid, that is ALL CPS does. In fact they offer therapy and
support to parent clients that have a history of childhood sexual abuse.

> But the way the government nitwits
> use this "Cycle Of Abuse" is a gross
> injustice.

Okay, show us how the "government nitwits" use this, exactly.

What child has been removed solely for the parent having been sexually
abused as a child?
>
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>> Kane,
>>>>> In Regard to ersatz ""Cycle of Abuse"" GAO disproved:
>>>>>
>>>>> What amount of pedantic explanations do you think
>>>>> substitutes for hard data?
>
>>>> When are you going to point to the places in the report that prove there
>>>> is NO cycle of abuse?
>
>>> Isn't that proving a negative?
>
> Cycle of Abuse was never statistically proven to be TRUE!

It has never been proven to be false. The GAO report was honest about
that and you are lying.

It admitted that there was evidence of it, but more research needed to
be done because of the great difficulty in doing such longitudinal
studies. Nearly impossible, for instance, to collect a control group.

You want data and statistics but you have no concept of what research
actually is.

>
>> That's what he's claiming. It's up to him to notice that.
>>
>> There is considerable research on the issue of abuse creating more abuse
>> perpetrated by the adult who was abused as a child.
>>
>> I've pointed him to it. He refused to read the proof of a positive.
>
> Kane pointed to lots of prosaic explanation.
> That is NOT the same as statistical proof that it's real.
>
>> He claims the GOA study PROVES a negative. "it's bogus," is his claim.
>
> It was never proven TRUE in the first place!

Nothing is, stupid. That is NOT what research is. Scientific research is
about seeking new information on an open ended continuum. Look that up,
stupid.

One can always claim something is "never proven TRUE in the first place."

> Somebody saw an anecdote and a new ""religion"" was formed.

"An anecdote?" Hundreds of thousands of sexually abused people that grew
up to have a horrible life because of unresolved childhood abuse, and
some of whom themselves became sex offenders?

Cops, mental health, and health professionals, social workers, all
seeing the same things and you want it to all be neatly codified or it's
FRAUD?

> Kane wrote
>> "There's no etc this etc that," is another.
>>
>> Let him wrestle with the logical dichotomy.
>>
>> Or is he your master you've come to rescue, Stupid monkeyboy?
>>> Doan
>>>
>> I have treated the results of intergenerational violence and abuse. I
>> have a small bias toward the records I read, the discussions parents of
>> adults who talking about abusing their child, and I've seen the results,
>> in the prisons and the mental health facilities.
>>
>> It's rare to find a person there, in any of these facilities, that has
>> NOT been abused as a child. Usually they are neurologically impaired in
>> some way, and their symptoms are violent reactivity. That is EXTREMELY
>> rare, and the chronically mentally ill take a hit for the ignorance of
>> the public and ignorant assholes like you and Greg trying to foist your
>> garbage on the community...even if only here.
>
> Kane saw an anecdote so he "got religion" about the
> Cycle of Abuse.

I saw hundreds. Not "an" anecdote. And I didn't "see" them from what
someone said. I saw the children as teens already well on their way to
the sex offender registry that had themselves been sexually abused. With
convictions of the offender.

> Apparently he couldn't see past the
> anecdote to the HARD DATA.

There is no data so hard as witnessing the ruin of a child's life, Greg.
YOU, of course side with the abusers that do that ruin to the child, so
you will never SEE what I saw, and other professionals saw and still see.

And, do you know what the word "inconclusive" means? That is ALL the
report said. It did NOT say what YOU claim...that The Cycle of Sexual
Abuse is "bogus."

http://www.ncrj.org/GAOCycle.htm

"Cycle of Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Whether Child Victims

Become Adult Abusers (Letter Report, 09/13/96, GAO/GGD-96-178).


Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed research studies

regarding the cycle of sexual abuse, focusing on the likelihood that

individuals who are victims of sexual abuse as children will become

sexual abusers of children in adulthood.



GAO found that: (1) there was no consensus among the 23 retrospective

and 2 prospective studies reviewed that childhood sexual abuse led

directly to the victim becoming an adult sexual abuser; (2) the

retrospective studies, which sought to determine whether a sample of

known sex offenders had been sexually abused as children, differed

considerably in the types of offenders studied, use of control or

comparison groups, and definition and reporting of childhood sexual

abuse; (3) although some of the retrospective studies concluded that

childhood sexual abuse may increase the risk that victims will commit

sexual abuse later, most of the studies noted that the majority of sex

offenders had not been sexually abused as children; (4) the prospective

studies, which tracked sexually abused children into adulthood to

determine how many became sex offenders, studied sample populations that

may not be representative of the entire population of childhood sexual

abuse victims; and (5) the prospective studies found that victims of

childhood sexual abuse were not more likely than nonvictims to be

arrested for sex offenses."

"Inconclusive," Greg, which does not mean, "bogus."

Professionals, not researchers, see ALL the people they see. They take
the histories and see the results in the current lives of the patient.

Do you know what "consensus" means, Greg? "there was no consensus among
the 23 retrospective and 2 prospective studies reviewed that childhood
sexual abuse led directly to the victim becoming an adult sexual abuser;"

It means, stupid, they DID NOT ALL AGREE. "Consensus" is full agreement.

That means, stupid, that SOME OF THE STUDIES DID INDEED SHOW THE
CORRELATION.

Everything else here indicates that the level of research at the
time...ten years ago, did not AGREE, not that it showed NO cycle.

I've pointed you to research since, and YOU have claimed it does not
show what you want it to have to show to be acceptable.

One, YOU are not a objective judge.

Two, you lied about what it said, because YOU did not read the offered
research or you could cite it.

You refuse to.

Read the actual report again, stupid.

Note were it establishes that the report PROVES there is NO cycle of abuse.

http://www.ncrj.org/GAOCycle.htm

Mark those spots. Get back to me with it.

Then I'll REANNOTATE those places where it states unequivocally that
indeed research is so difficult it cannot be established, yet there is
some proof it does exist.

0:->





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Social Workers and Psychologists are all taught
> > about a "Cycle of Abuse". It's in every textbook
> > and yet there has never been any proof that it
> > actually EXISTS. The GAO surveyed 23 studies
> > and found that none proved the Cycle Of Abuse exists.
>
> One, list the textbooks by name. Otherwise you are guessing, again.

Kane, you know VERY WELL that this "Cycle of Abuse"
is printed in almost every textbook for Social Work and
Psychology.

> Two, lack of proof does not correlate to the non-existence of something.

An atheist just proved that God IS possible!
Film at 11!

> If that were so science would have been a dead subject the first time
> someone went looking for something they had not experienced yet.

Like UFO's?

Greg wrote
> Like a religion though, they all BELIEVE that
> it exists completely without any DATA to support
> the existance of the "Cycle of Abuse".

Kane wrote
> What data? You haven't read any data. You are referring to a very old
> report...not a study, not scientific, just a review of the documents.
> And it did NOT say there was NO proof, but that proof was insufficient
> and in some instances indicated there WAS indeed a high correlation.

And in other cases that there was NONE!

Statistics ARE that way. Just because something is
true in a few cases, like the local bus driver here who
was buggered as a kid and ""repaired"" by Iowa DHS
only to go on to molesting kids as an adult!
I mentioned that I knew of an isolated incident locally,
but that an isolated incident or "anecdote" does not
validate a statistical truism.

> You are simply lying.

Coming from you that is like being bondable.

> And that is why you do NOT quote the report directly.

Your intention is to complicate things into
the usual grand filibuster, to baffle people
with your BS. Or are you trying to say that
the short versions are inaccurate?
Is the TITLE of the report inaccurate?
Is the synopsis of the report inaccurate?

Did GAO make short versions that LIE
about what the detailed report says?

By the way, didn't I post the entire GAO report
into the newsgroups?

Greg wrote
> When new research directly disagrees with
> widely held beliefs of Social Workers, some
> people delay the appropriate changes pending
> "peer review".

Kane wrote
> What new research are you talking about? That report was ten years old.
> Thus the "research" reviewed was older. And it did not establish that
> the Cycle of Abuse didn't exist. In fact it was heavily weasel worded
> (knowing the researchers involved would NOT like their findings
> misconstrued as bogus).
>
> I annotated those points in the report, and posted it in reply to you,
> Greg, showing that indeed there were more than enough instances of
> findings that showed there WAS correlation in childhood abuse to adult
> repeating of that abuse.
>
> Read the prisoner portion again.
>
> Some reports found no correlation, and some DID indeed find correlation.

Statistically this proves what, Kane?
Did the GAO title this report incorrectly?

What proved this ""Cycle of Abuse"" existed in the first place?

Where is the solid proof that this axiom is true?
It is a truism used by entire INDUSTRIES, based on WHAT?

Something that MIGHT BE, but hasn't been disproven?

Should we apply that logic to UFO's or the entire
debate about God's existance?

That despite an "absence of proof" the thing is TRUE?

Greg wrote
> > Old beliefs and practices
> > apparently got "grandfathered in" and never
> > had to pass rigorous "peer review".

Kane wrote
> Beliefs and practices aren't subject to professional publication in peer
> reviewed journals. "Beliefs and practices" are not "peer reviewed." Only
> research is.

In other words, if they had been practicing VOODOO for
20 years, the basis for that didn't pass peer review
but any research foundational to new practices
must pass peer review? Meanwhile the VOODOO
continues to be "best practices"?
Or used IN COURT as proof of "AT RISK OF" ?

Kane wrote
> See what I mean about you babbling?

Greg wrote
> Workers and courts are now operating based
> on the belief in a Cycle of Abuse which has
> no basis statistically.

Kane wrote
> You are lying. And a great many activities of
> humans are performed without statistical basis.
> That is not the only criteria.

ROFL! Like VOODOO?


Kane wrote
> When clinicians see case after case, nearly all their cases in fact,
> where they are dealing with a sex offender and that sex offender was
> sexually abused they don't really need a "basis statistically" to
> proceed as though that person was sexually abused as a child and
> sexually abused others later.
> It said so in the GAO report.

Yes, There is a danger that people who CLAIM they were
sexually abused as children might not have been.
In fact the "proceed as though" part applies also to cases
where agencies perform ""cures"" which may actually
CREATE such a false belief.

Children where nothing really happenned are often
subjected to therapy done by totally unqualified,
unlicensed people and with the paid direction being
"to process feelings about the abuse".

The people getting PAID for this almost NEVER
report back something like HOLD UP! this kid
was never actually sexually abused!
Any denial by the child is sen as "in denial".

Lack of proof never stops the presumption in this case!

Denial never stops the presumption!

Gotta keep that MONEY flowing!

Greg wrote
> > All that is necessary to disprove the application
> > of Cycle of Abuse is to show the ABSENCE of
> > any basis for it to have been put into
> > practice in the first place.

Kane wrote
> Then show the absence of any basis for it.
> You have not done so, nor did
> the GAO report.

The big SUCKING sound when you try to
prove the "Cycle of Abuse" by describing
the reasonable sounding mechanism and
an anecdote.

Greg
> Perhaps the correct language would be
> FAILURE TO PROVE Cycle of Abuse,

Kane wrote
> Oh, the weaseling. R R R R R R
> It's failure to prove it absence, stupid.

You're displaying your "tick" again, Matey!

Greg wrote
> but considering that 23 studies found
> NO CORRELATION to justify the claim of
> a "Cycle of Abuse" it is about as close to
> ""disproven"" as anything gets.

Kane wrote
> List the studies. Where in the document did it say that?

The title.
The synopsis.

Greg wrote
> Functionally, since agencies AFFIRM the
> Cycle of Abuse in action, all that is necessary
> to ""disprove"" it is to show the lack of BASIS.

Kane wrote
> "Functionally?"

You know, that world OUTSIDE of the Ivory Tower of Academia!

Kane wrote
> You mean they keep having clients and patients that have sexually abused
> others and themselves were sexually abused as children?

No, I mean they see an ANECDOTE and falsely
presume it is AUTOMATIC.
One caseworker somewhere saw a case where
this panned out, and they all cluck about it
like chickens.

Greg wrote
> > In essence, the "Cycle Of Abuse" as it is
> > being USED in PRACTICE is a fraud.
> > It has no basis statistically.

Kane wrote
> Lack of statistics does not prove fraud, Greg. It's your wishful
> thinking and I'm beginning to wonder why you are hung up on this.

THIS IS PRECIOUS!

Greg wrote
> > The burden of proof should NOT be on accused
> > parents to disprove it,

Kane wrote > Correct.


Greg wrote
> > but on the AGENCY to prove it with
> stats that apparently DO NOT EXIST.

Kane wrote
> Why must the agency prove in a case where a
> parent has sexually abused a
> child that it must be proven with stats?

Kane wrote
> All they need is the evidence THIS person did it.

Evidence to what standard?
Remember we are talking about ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
If you had REAL EVIDENCE it would not be in the
hands of the AGENCY at all! Then it's CRIMINAL.

Greg wrote
> > Unfortunately in Family Courts, the burden of proof
> > is often twisted around horribly, as if the parents
> > need to prove they are innocent, rather than
> > the agency needing to prove guilt.

Kane wrote
> They do not try people in family court for having
> been sexually abused as a child and now
> likely to sexually abuse.

Yes they do.
Remember the standard is "AT RISK OF"!
You just said the word "likely" yourself.
That is the LIE and the damnable way that
lie wrapped in a neat package, Kane!
Thank you.
<snip>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Social Workers and Psychologists are all taught
>>> about a "Cycle of Abuse". It's in every textbook
>>> and yet there has never been any proof that it
>>> actually EXISTS. The GAO surveyed 23 studies
>>> and found that none proved the Cycle Of Abuse exists.
>> One, list the textbooks by name. Otherwise you are guessing, again.
>
> Kane, you know VERY WELL that this "Cycle of Abuse"
> is printed in almost every textbook for Social Work and
> Psychology.

Look, dummy. Get your terms straight. This descriptive term is used for
a number of presenting cases that social workers and psychologists deal
with.

One relates to the progressive escalation of violence in domestic abuse.

Another to ALL kinds of abuse of children, and their escalation as in
domestic violence.

There is also the one that addresses all types of abuse as found in the
adult perp that was themselves abused in various ways as a child,
including neglect, the most often fatal of all abuses.

The Cycle of SEXUAL Abuse is, or should be the subject here, just so you
won't be shown as even more of an idiot than usual.

You are dumb as a stump, and all the coaching in the world isn't going
to make you into a debater.

0:->

....snip...see other reply to your post for the rest.



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Social Workers and Psychologists are all taught
>>> about a "Cycle of Abuse". It's in every textbook
>>> and yet there has never been any proof that it
>>> actually EXISTS. The GAO surveyed 23 studies
>>> and found that none proved the Cycle Of Abuse exists.
>> One, list the textbooks by name. Otherwise you are guessing, again.
>
> Kane, you know VERY WELL that this "Cycle of Abuse"
> is printed in almost every textbook for Social Work and
> Psychology.

No I don't. Prove it.
>
>> Two, lack of proof does not correlate to the non-existence of something.
>
> An atheist just proved that God IS possible!
> Film at 11!

A stupid little boy just proved that one can believe in something that
there is proof for, even it is not totally agreed on by everyone.

You "believe" there is no cycle of abuse. I have every reason to KNOW
that it exists, having worked with the intergenerational victims of it.

Parents and their children.

>> If that were so science would have been a dead subject the first time
>> someone went looking for something they had not experienced yet.
>
> Like UFO's?

Well, Greg, if you bothered to read the actual words in the report you'd
know that there IS proof of the Cycle of Abuse, just not everyone's
report agrees with that.

There is a failure of "consensus." Do you know what the word means?

> Greg wrote
>> Like a religion though, they all BELIEVE that
>> it exists completely without any DATA to support
>> the existance of the "Cycle of Abuse".
>
> Kane wrote
>> What data? You haven't read any data. You are referring to a very old
>> report...not a study, not scientific, just a review of the documents.
>> And it did NOT say there was NO proof, but that proof was insufficient
>> and in some instances indicated there WAS indeed a high correlation.
>
> And in other cases that there was NONE!

So you have disagreement. There is virtually NO scientific research that
does not have disagreement. They are still arguing Darwin, and Einstein,
stupid.

http://ppp.unipv.it/Collana/Pages/Libri/Saggi/NuovaVoltiana_PDF/sei.pdf

Do you use electricity, stupid?

Well, you cannot anylonger because there isn't "consensus" on some
issues about it.

> Statistics ARE that way. Just because something is
> true in a few cases, like the local bus driver here who
> was buggered as a kid and ""repaired"" by Iowa DHS
> only to go on to molesting kids as an adult!

Statistics are what "way," Greg? You didn't make any statistical
argument above.

> I mentioned that I knew of an isolated incident locally,
> but that an isolated incident or "anecdote" does not
> validate a statistical truism.
>
>> You are simply lying.
>
> Coming from you that is like being bondable.

Nope. You are still lying. I've posted the exact words from the report,
and pointed out the meaning of words, down to even single words and you
still don't get it.

>
>> And that is why you do NOT quote the report directly.
>
> Your intention is to complicate things into
> the usual grand filibuster, to baffle people
> with your BS.

My intention is to point out that you just described Doug to a Tee.

I, on the other hand, am taking the report apart and exposing it to you
sometimes word for word.

Let me explain. If there was consensus in the research papers that there
is no cycle of abuse the report would NOT have said there was NOT
concensus.

That MEANS stupid, that some of the 25 (not 23 you error prone twit)
said "there is no proof of a cycle of abuse."

Now ask yourself, while your brain is in gear, what WOULD THEY HAVE TO
SAY ABOUT THE OTHER RESEARCH PAPERS THAT DIDN'T AGREE...LACKED CONSENSUS
WITH THOSE THAT SAID 'NO PROOF.'

> Or are you trying to say that
> the short versions are inaccurate?

Short versions? Of WHAT, stupid.

They simply don't spell it out, but they say the same thing. THERE IS A
LACK OF AGREEMENT AMONG SCIENTISTS AS TO THE CYCLE OF ABUSE.

Often, stupid, it's not even about whether it exists or not, but the
extent or limitations of it. An important mention of the difficulty of
research ON it.

> Is the TITLE of the report inaccurate?
> Is the synopsis of the report inaccurate?

No. The title is CORRECT. Your interpretation, as in most things you do
not understand and want YOUR version to be true, is BOGUS.

> Did GAO make short versions that LIE
> about what the detailed report says?

No.

> By the way, didn't I post the entire GAO report
> into the newsgroups?

Yep, and then proceeded to lie your ass off. First about the title, then
refusing to point directly to the words in the report that refutes the
existence of a cycle of sexual abuse.

Let us clarify. And best start with the title itself. I'd explain why
they didn't LIE, but YOU did.

"United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to the Chairman,
Subcommittee
on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives
September 1996 CYCLE OF SEXUAL ABUSE Research Inconclusive
About Whether Child Victims Become Adult Abusers G O A
years 1921 - 1996 GAO/GGD-96-178"

Do you see that word 'Inconclusive?'

Apparently YOU don't know what it means and what a total ass you've made
of yourself AGAIN.

You can't figure out the other half of "consensus" that disagrees with
YOUR desired "bogus," and now we have to explain "Inconclusive" to you,
stupid.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inconclusive

nconclusive

adj 1: not conclusive; not putting an end to doubt or question; "an
inconclusive reply"; "inconclusive evidence"; "the inconclusive
committee vote" [ant: conclusive] 2: leading to no final results or
outcome; "an inconclusive experiment"

So now, Greg, the utterly and ignorantly stupid, do you understand what
the report actually said about The Cycle of Sexual Abuse?

It said "The Research on The Cycle of Sexual abuse LEADS TO NO FINAL
RESULT."

And reading the actual article, which though YOU printed YOU did not or
do NOT accept what it says, would show you that indeed some research did
indeed show a strong correlation.

Those of us that dealt with the victims and perps in prisons, mental
health facilities, and particularly those in the field of child welfare,
know damn WELL it's there, but that the research as yet is so difficult
that it's inconclusive and there is no consensus.

That condition exists through out SCIENCE YOU ****ANT, yet we go right
ahead and act on the best information available.

YOU have claimed that children are removed NOT because they were
sexually molested, but because a parent was a victim of sexual abuse as
child and might thereby pose a risk.

Is that not correct?

If it IS, then provide us a case where this happened.

And don't EVEN bother with the lying vicious dangerous child abusers
that pose as "CPS reformers," and their anecdotal bull**** lies.

You have set up a premise, (taking children because of the cycle of
sexual abuse), and you have tried to prove it by claiming "bogus" when
so such thing is said EVEN IN THE TITLE OF THE REPORT.

You are so out of touch with reality (you pretend) to you give meaning
to words and phrases they do not have.

> Greg wrote
>> When new research directly disagrees with
>> widely held beliefs of Social Workers, some
>> people delay the appropriate changes pending
>> "peer review".
>
> Kane wrote
>> What new research are you talking about? That report was ten years old.
>> Thus the "research" reviewed was older. And it did not establish that
>> the Cycle of Abuse didn't exist. In fact it was heavily weasel worded
>> (knowing the researchers involved would NOT like their findings
>> misconstrued as bogus).
>>
>> I annotated those points in the report, and posted it in reply to you,
>> Greg, showing that indeed there were more than enough instances of
>> findings that showed there WAS correlation in childhood abuse to adult
>> repeating of that abuse.
>>
>> Read the prisoner portion again.
>>
>> Some reports found no correlation, and some DID indeed find correlation.
>
> Statistically this proves what, Kane?
> Did the GAO title this report incorrectly?

Did you read it correctly? Where does it say the research is "bogus?"

That's not the meaning of "Inconclusive," stupid.
>
> What proved this ""Cycle of Abuse"" existed in the first place?

Oh, about a few hundred thousand case records from interviews, along
with forensic evidence a child was molested. It's simply never been
thoroughly analyzed because of the limitations imposed on science for
the way it proves a hypothesis.
>
> Where is the solid proof that this axiom is true?
> It is a truism used by entire INDUSTRIES, based on WHAT?

To do what, Greg?

Show us where it's been used to remove children as the ONLY factor in a
case.
>
> Something that MIGHT BE, but hasn't been disproven?

Nope, something that IS BUT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF
SCIENCE.

> Should we apply that logic to UFO's or the entire
> debate about God's existance?

Nope, but if you are going to apply our logic, you must forthwith unplug
your computer. Some principles that apply to its operation are not fully
proven by science.
>
> That despite an "absence of proof" the thing is TRUE?
>
There is not "absence of proof," in full. There is a partial absence of
proof sufficient for the title of the report and its content.

The research is as of 1996, INCONCLUSIVE and the researchers are not in
full agreement (concensus).

But much IS THERE to examine and consider. It's not as though they
reported NO instances where an adult offender was sexually abused as a
child.

Now if you introduced me to God, and she could convince me she was real,
not just a black, jewish, lesbian female, I might just stop being an
atheist.

YOU have the same choice whether or not to believe in the cycle of
sexual abuse.....IF you read the report, noting that SOME evidence was
CONCLUSIVE for THOSE reports, and you still don't believe...well, Your
choice, stupid.

> Greg wrote
>>> Old beliefs and practices
>>> apparently got "grandfathered in" and never
>>> had to pass rigorous "peer review".
>
> Kane wrote
>> Beliefs and practices aren't subject to professional publication in peer
>> reviewed journals. "Beliefs and practices" are not "peer reviewed." Only
>> research is.
>
> In other words, if they had been practicing VOODOO for
> 20 years,

Not a analogy to the facts.

> the basis for that didn't pass peer review
> but any research foundational to new practices
> must pass peer review?

Peer review isn't required for practice standards.
That's an academic exercise. Not a field exercise.

> Meanwhile the VOODOO
> continues to be "best practices"?

Cycle of abuse is a term describing a condition professionals are to be
aware of. Not used to make diagnosis, or to take legal actions concerning.

> Or used IN COURT as proof of "AT RISK OF" ?

Now you have to prove that this has been the case.

What parent has lost parental rights, or even had their child removed
solely on the basis of "The Cycle of Sexual Abuse?"
>
> Kane wrote
>> See what I mean about you babbling?
>
> Greg wrote
>> Workers and courts are now operating based
>> on the belief in a Cycle of Abuse which has
>> no basis statistically.
>
> Kane wrote
>> You are lying. And a great many activities of
>> humans are performed without statistical basis.
>> That is not the only criteria.
>
> ROFL! Like VOODOO?

No. Your analogy is bogus. It's not "voodoo" or "not voodoo."

It's the use of science, and empirical knowledge both, that lend
themselves to practices.

> Kane wrote
>> When clinicians see case after case, nearly all their cases in fact,
>> where they are dealing with a sex offender and that sex offender was
>> sexually abused they don't really need a "basis statistically" to
>> proceed as though that person was sexually abused as a child and
>> sexually abused others later.
>> It said so in the GAO report.
>
> Yes, There is a danger that people who CLAIM they were
> sexually abused as children might not have been.

That would be rare. Are you suggesting it is the case in the majority?

> In fact the "proceed as though" part applies also to cases
> where agencies perform ""cures"" which may actually
> CREATE such a false belief.

Babbling. Agencies don't cure.

> Children where nothing really happenned are often
> subjected to therapy done by totally unqualified,
> unlicensed people and with the paid direction being
> "to process feelings about the abuse".

Proof please.

You are just lying again. This is made up propaganda of the assholes
that run those CPS reform groups that are hideouts for child abusers.

> The people getting PAID for this almost NEVER
> report back something like HOLD UP! this kid
> was never actually sexually abused!
> Any denial by the child is sen as "in denial".

Utter and complete nonsense babbling.

Unlicensed people do not do therapy with children by referral from CPS.

Those few that do in-house therapy are trained MSWs or hold psych
degrees no lower than masters.

You are crackpotting right along with the best of them.

> Lack of proof never stops the presumption in this case!

Nothing quite like the report from the attending physician that shows
the torn vaginal and or anal tissue.

> Denial never stops the presumption!

Not in the face of forensics that show otherwise. And the confessions of
the perps. And their presence in jail, criminal court, convicted for
child abuse, and in prison for a few years.

> Gotta keep that MONEY flowing!

Nothing to do with money.

If readers couldn't see the proof of your insanity and ranting before,
that should wake them up. The cry of the ANTI CPS REFORMER NUTCASE
PROPAGANDIST.

Sort of an all purpose, when all else fails, shot in the dark.

> Greg wrote
>>> All that is necessary to disprove the application
>>> of Cycle of Abuse is to show the ABSENCE of
>>> any basis for it to have been put into
>>> practice in the first place.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Then show the absence of any basis for it.
>> You have not done so, nor did
>> the GAO report.
>
> The big SUCKING sound when you try to
> prove the "Cycle of Abuse" by describing
> the reasonable sounding mechanism and
> an anecdote.

You did not, as usual, answer the question asked, as asked.

I don't have to prove it. It exists, and empirical evidence abounds.

The research, rigorous and academic, has not been done successfully
because the control of the variables is so very difficult.

AND, smart ass, I posted a list of researchers SINCE 1996 that have gone
further in exploring the effects of childhood abuse, including sexual
abuse, as it effects adults later in life.

Are you REALLY trying to make an excuse for those that sexually abuse
children?

> Greg
>> Perhaps the correct language would be
>> FAILURE TO PROVE Cycle of Abuse,
>
> Kane wrote
>> Oh, the weaseling. R R R R R R
>> It's failure to prove it absence, stupid.
>
> You're displaying your "tick" again, Matey!

The truth is not a tick. You claimed you had proof that it was bogus.
You had NOT produced that proof.

>
> Greg wrote
>> but considering that 23 studies found
>> NO CORRELATION to justify the claim of
>> a "Cycle of Abuse" it is about as close to
>> ""disproven"" as anything gets.
>
> Kane wrote
>> List the studies. Where in the document did it say that?
>
> The title.
> The synopsis.

I just showed you in the title the word, "Inconclusive." And we know
that in the introduction the word, "consensus" is used. Both show that
there is in fact research, but it is only Inconclusive, and has some
dissenters, so they do not have consensus...something ALL science
suffers from yet practical applications abound.

> Greg wrote
>> Functionally, since agencies AFFIRM the
>> Cycle of Abuse in action, all that is necessary
>> to ""disprove"" it is to show the lack of BASIS.
>
> Kane wrote
>> "Functionally?"
>
> You know, that world OUTSIDE of the Ivory Tower of Academia!

Well, thank you Greg. YOU have just proven MY claim that there IS in
fact a functional use and presence of The Cycle of Sexual Abuse, by
moving from you insistence that function can ONLY follow academic proof.

R R R R R R

Like my "tick" now, stupid?
>
> Kane wrote
>> You mean they keep having clients and patients that have sexually abused
>> others and themselves were sexually abused as children?
>
> No, I mean they see an ANECDOTE and falsely
> presume it is AUTOMATIC.

Anecdote. As in ONE? R R R R R

> One caseworker somewhere saw a case where
> this panned out, and they all cluck about it
> like chickens.

One? YOU can't even come up with a single case where a parent lost a
child because of The Cycle of Sexual Abuse, unless of course they DID in
fact sexually abuse the child.

Just how stupid ARE you?
>
> Greg wrote
>>> In essence, the "Cycle Of Abuse" as it is
>>> being USED in PRACTICE is a fraud.
>>> It has no basis statistically.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Lack of statistics does not prove fraud, Greg. It's your wishful
>> thinking and I'm beginning to wonder why you are hung up on this.
>
> THIS IS PRECIOUS!

Of course, because it's the truth. If I can't prove to you I grew an
exceptionally sweet lettuce crop this year, best tasting ever, that does
NOT mean I'm lying, stupid. Or that the Romaine isn't delicious.

>
> Greg wrote
>>> The burden of proof should NOT be on accused
>>> parents to disprove it,
>
> Kane wrote > Correct.
>
>
> Greg wrote
>>> but on the AGENCY to prove it with
>> stats that apparently DO NOT EXIST.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Why must the agency prove in a case where a
>> parent has sexually abused a
>> child that it must be proven with stats?
>
> Kane wrote
>> All they need is the evidence THIS person did it.
>
> Evidence to what standard?

Forensic.

> Remember we are talking about ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
> If you had REAL EVIDENCE it would not be in the
> hands of the AGENCY at all! Then it's CRIMINAL.

No one has lost a child to "The Cycle of Sexual Abuse," Greg. Nor has
anyone been convicted of sexually abusing their child on that evidence.

You are delusional.

> Greg wrote
>>> Unfortunately in Family Courts, the burden of proof
>>> is often twisted around horribly, as if the parents
>>> need to prove they are innocent, rather than
>>> the agency needing to prove guilt.
>
> Kane wrote
>> They do not try people in family court for having
>> been sexually abused as a child and now
>> likely to sexually abuse.
>
> Yes they do.

Bull****.

> Remember the standard is "AT RISK OF"!

Yep. Has nothing to do, with The Cycle of Sexual Abuse. No child has
been removed solely because a parent was sexually abused as a child.

> You just said the word "likely" yourself.

I used it to support the NEGATIVE, you silly ****ant.

> That is the LIE and the damnable way that
> lie wrapped in a neat package, Kane!

What's a lie? That I claim children are not removed solely on the
"evidence" the parent was sexually abused as a child?

> Thank you.

You are welcome. Now all you have to do is prove me wrong. Find a case
you can authenticate where a child was even just removed on ONLY The
Cycle of Sexual Abuse claim, and more especially, since YOU have made
the claim, WHERE A PARENT HAS LOST CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILD TO THE STATE
PERMANENTLY.

> <snip>

Yeah, snip away. We know what you refuse to answer.

Where's all this proof of your basic premise, that The Cycle of Abuse is
misused by CPS workers to take people's children away?

Come on, dummy, cough it up.

R R R R R R R

0:->





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Two, lack of proof does not correlate to the non-existence of something.

Greg wrote
> An atheist just proved that God IS possible!
> Film at 11!

[Doan]

On 14 Aug 2006, Greegor wrote:

> Kane wrote
> > Two, lack of proof does not correlate to the non-existence of something.
>
> Greg wrote
> > An atheist just proved that God IS possible!
> > Film at 11!
>
Don't you just love the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS? ;-)

Doan

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> lack of proof does not correlate to the non-existence of something.

Greg wrote
> An atheist just proved that God IS possible! Film at 11!

Doan wrote
> Don't you just love the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS? ;-)

Yeah. It's like arguing with a cult member about religion.
They mistake their own strongly held BELIEFS for FACT.

Have you noticed the behavior where Kane
is losing in an argument so he gets all worked
up and writes a four page diatribe, complete
with snotty insults at the end?

If he is an example of what non-spanking does,
I suspect MORE kids are going to get SPANKED!

He must have been a petulent child, defiant
about getting spankings he EARNED, and stuck
in "arrested development" at that stage.

Back before psychology joined into the
anti-spanking thing, they did used to have
child psychology that COVERED kids who
were defiant about spankings they deserved.

The field of psychology has probably made more
changes related to politics and political correctness than
changes due to new discoveries about psychology.

A grown up man rabidly crusading against spanking?

He has claimed broad work experience which
doesn't fit his obsession with stats and "debate".
People who cling to ACADEMIA are generally
inside of academia or only recently out of it.

In order to meet him on HIS TERMS I've entered
into these long point by point exchanges.

When I snip for BREVITY he repeatedly whines
as if I have done something dishonest.

This is a tactic of an egghead from Academia,
not some experienced person who wants to
cut through the crap and get the job done.

That is expected and normal for you in an
academic setting, but Kane does it more than
you and he SAYS he is some old retired fart.

If he really is an old retired fart, he has some
WIERD psychology going on.

Middle age and older people looking at his
nit-picky obsessiveness and whiny behavior
as suspiciously like some BAD gay cliche'.
Like a gay overexaggeration of "girly" interaction..

Even ATTORNEYS and JUDGES don't much
get into this kind of nit-picky interaction.
It really seems WHINEY.


THEN THERE'S LAVONNE

Did you notice how LaVonne herself brought up
adopting two black babies, just to make some
liberal argument about the BLACK EXPERIENCE?

LaVonne says
- adopting kids,
- being spanked, or
- whether she thinks she was abused as a child
these don't have anything to do with her
""professional"" opinions on things.

Don't you think these items MIGHT just COLOR
her opinions just a little?

Or her interpretation of ""research""?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Two, lack of proof does not correlate to the non-existence of something.
>
> Greg wrote
>> An atheist just proved that God IS possible!
>> Film at 11!
>


Taking the intellectual high road again I see. 0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Taking the intellectual high road again I see. 0:->

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > lack of proof does not correlate to the non-existence of something.
>
> Greg wrote
> > An atheist just proved that God IS possible! Film at 11!
>
> Doan wrote
> > Don't you just love the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS? ;-)
>
> Yeah. It's like arguing with a cult member about religion.
> They mistake their own strongly held BELIEFS for FACT.
>
> Have you noticed the behavior where Kane
> is losing in an argument so he gets all worked
> up and writes a four page diatribe, complete
> with snotty insults at the end?
>
> If he is an example of what non-spanking does,
> I suspect MORE kids are going to get SPANKED!
>
> He must have been a petulent child, defiant
> about getting spankings he EARNED, and stuck
> in "arrested development" at that stage.
>
> Back before psychology joined into the
> anti-spanking thing, they did used to have
> child psychology that COVERED kids who
> were defiant about spankings they deserved.
>
> The field of psychology has probably made more
> changes related to politics and political correctness than
> changes due to new discoveries about psychology.
>
> A grown up man rabidly crusading against spanking?
>
> He has claimed broad work experience which
> doesn't fit his obsession with stats and "debate".
> People who cling to ACADEMIA are generally
> inside of academia or only recently out of it.
>
> In order to meet him on HIS TERMS I've entered
> into these long point by point exchanges.
>
> When I snip for BREVITY he repeatedly whines
> as if I have done something dishonest.
>
> This is a tactic of an egghead from Academia,
> not some experienced person who wants to
> cut through the crap and get the job done.
>
> That is expected and normal for you in an
> academic setting, but Kane does it more than
> you and he SAYS he is some old retired fart.
>
> If he really is an old retired fart, he has some
> WIERD psychology going on.
>
> Middle age and older people looking at his
> nit-picky obsessiveness and whiny behavior
> as suspiciously like some BAD gay cliche'.
> Like a gay overexaggeration of "girly" interaction..
>
> Even ATTORNEYS and JUDGES don't much
> get into this kind of nit-picky interaction.
> It really seems WHINEY.
>
>
> THEN THERE'S LAVONNE
>
> Did you notice how LaVonne herself brought up
> adopting two black babies, just to make some
> liberal argument about the BLACK EXPERIENCE?
>
> LaVonne says
> - adopting kids,
> - being spanked, or
> - whether she thinks she was abused as a child
> these don't have anything to do with her
> ""professional"" opinions on things.
>
> Don't you think these items MIGHT just COLOR
> her opinions just a little?
>
> Or her interpretation of ""research""?