In article <dmmd44tp1k973ms2hi9q8gupfh9u6ej0dc@4ax.com>,
HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote:
> 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!
Somehow I missed the original discussion this refers to, but I know of
two studies of inmates made in the 1980s (or before) that may have
application: in summary, inmates who were convicted of sex offenses had
LESS exposure to pornography than inmates convicted of other [general]
offenses. I suspect that is counter to the argument VV is responding
to, but since I missed it, can't be sure.
|
|