Hello, Dear Friends,
I should like to make a few observations regarding the recent
discussions, lest you make the mistake of assuming their validity.
A statistician is the first who will tell you that a strong
correlation only demonstrates a high probability of a relationship
between two phenomena. It does not indicate a cause and effect
relationship. I once learned in a basic statistics class that the
city of Chicago has the highest per capita occurrence of churches in
the United States, but it also has the highest occurrence of
alcoholism. It would be fallacy to state that one causes the other
(though I am certain many of you might agree!) Hence, it is a
non-sequitur to state that viewing child pornography CAUSES the viewer
to molest.
Secondly, a statistical study which fails to adequately account for a
variety of variables may appear to uncover a valid relationship, but
even if no cause-effect relationship is postulated, this failure
invalidates it. The conclusions quoted before the United States
Congress were drawn from just such a study. The most glaring error,
as protested by several statisticians reviewing the study, was the
assumption that the population of inmates selected for the study were
representative of the general population. The fact that the
participants were enrolled in a BOP sex offender program in which
psychiatrists gave credit to inmates who "revealed previously
unadmitted offenses" towards their overall progress is particularly
suspect. There is no doubt these inmates realised that the
recommendations of the psychiatrist-psychologists, so-called
professionals, could have an inmate's stay in prison extended
indefinitely if they felt he remained a "danger to children." A
no-brainer, as they say. Freedom or incarceration hanging in the
balance, who would not admit that they'd molested the Pope?
Mr. Cartwright has submitted several papers for our perusal. I am
impressed with the depth of his research, certainly! As for tinkering
with the mind, I would remind dear Mr. Cartwright that a serious
injury to the brain changes all kinds of behaviour, whether removing a
malignancy or performing a frontal occipital lobotomy. These
invasive, destructive and controversial "procedures" have historically
been used to "socialize" a variety of groups seen as not valued,
including the mentally ill, the poor and the Negro. I would encourage
Mr. Cartwright to review American history, in which it was perfectly
acceptable to lobotomize children as young as 4 years old to allow
them to "fit." Indeed, the National Socialist German Workers Party
adopted American "advances" in eugenics to assist in making their
undesirables "fit" (which, as you know, often meant "dead.") A
wonderful contribution by the United States medical community, I am
sure you would agree, Mr. Cartwright.
In each case, a bright and usually young, energetic medical
professional truly believed he had found the final panacea, often only
to have the idea overturned after causing unendurable misery. So I
put very little faith in CT scans, or MRIs, to identify the nature of
Boylove, for I have seen the fruits of those efforts among others who
were too poor, too challenged, or too defenseless, to protect
themselves from society's cures. In the tradition of the alchemists,
their efforts would be better spent turning lead into gold, or at the
very least into petrol.
So, dear friends, assign no importance to these studies, for they are
simply silliness, merely the frantic tinkerings of those who would
dishearten, denigrate and destroy you.
Sincerely,
HMS Victor Victorian NP-g18
God Save the Queen!
God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
Rule Britannia!
|
|