Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 06-20-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Here is another self-evident assertion: People seriously disturbed by homosexual behavior are, for a fact, seriously disturbed.

You just keep thinkin' happy thoughts, pal.

Nowhere357 · 06-20-2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
You just keep thinkin' happy thoughts, pal.

Read the statement very carefully, then explain where you see the flaw. Or keep making nonsense noises, as you have here. Whatever.

dk · 06-20-2003, 01:43 PM

Dr Rick: (snip)
As dk found out, it's easy to find a site I reference if it's open to everyone or if one already has access to it.
dk: If you reference online material its good form to list the URL.

dk: That�s what I said, the study had nothing to do with homosexuality, or a possible link to homosexuality.
Dr Rick: Wrong.
dk: I�ll take that as a dogmatic statement.

Dr Rick: As part of the study, the researchers collected excellent data to characterize pedophiliac characteristics. That the study's primary aim was not to establish what is already well-established does not allow one to conclude that the study had no bearing on what is already well-established.
dk: I have no idea how data gets a rank of �excellent�, except by duplicating the results. �Referrals came from: medical services (about 47%); psychotherapists and psychologists (11%); social services (about 5%); probation services (about 20%); solicitors (4%); other professional agencies (3%); and self or family referrals (about 9%).� - Study Population From the beginning psychopathology has been hobbled by three impenetrable veils�

inaccuracy of recall
inaccuracy of inquiry
unknown distribution of general population.

How ambiguity decays data or emanates from data depends on what the researcher underwrites as a successful outcome. This study gathers data from the perspective of victims and abusers, not just any set of abusers and victims but those that seek treatment at a particular institution located in London. It is absurd to believe, suggest or assert this represents most sexual predators. The question is... Do homosexual pedophiles want help, or more access to children?

Dr Rick: In the course of collecting data, the researchers accumulated data that incidently confirms what is already well-established.
dk: Ohhh, incidentally�Sadly the word incident in any form doesn�t appear in the study. The authors of the study say, �(SNIP) Further, in typical forensic circumstances, salient psychological information may not be available because certain subjects will be wary of authority and therefore likely to deny or suppress such information. In many cases, the offenders will use conscious denial, suppression or other psychological subterfuges when confronted with the seriousness and legal implications of their behaviour. However, it is less likely that these defences would be employed in a forensic psychotherapy clinic setting where confidentiality was protected. For this reason, it was helpful that clinical material from a large cohort of offenders referred for assessment or therapy at a health service psychotherapy clinic could be studied as there was a better possibility of valid information emerging about the internal psychological world of such offenders.� - ( Introduction last paragraph ibid )
So in reality most data collected on child abuse is coerced or intentionally misleading. No matter how diligent, honest and well intended the researchers they simply lack the discernment to distinguish between the subjects recollections, miscomprehensions and subterfuges. Its no wonder psychology lacks credibility.

dk: There has been painfully little research on paraphilia done because its politically incorrect. Here�s the kicker�
Dr Rick: If that was the only study on the entire planet done on pedophilia, it could possibly be a kicker. However, hundreds of studies have been done on peodphilia, and no reliable data has been collected that can support an accusation that homosexuals are more likely to assault children.
dk: To my knowledge no study has been commissioned to find a link.

Dr Rick: Let's look at the reference dk provides but fails to link: it addresses the general category of paraphilia, which includes but is much broader than pedophilia, but does not include any evidence that allows a conclusion that studies directed at pedophilia confirming there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia are invalid. The researcher themselves draw no such inferences.
dk: What are you talking about, I�ve been railing against Freud�s egotism, and the spurious incoherent term homosexual. All the research slides upon a circular ruler without a frame of reference, like a slide rule based on amorphous unverifiable logarithm tables. Megan Laws have kept pedophilia in the public eye, not insights from sexologists who spin their wheels on prison turnstiles releasing sexual predators with expert testimony. A couple days ago I read a hysterical article that declared most black and Hispanic minorities homosexual prot�g�s errantly identify themselves heterosexuals because of cultural and sexual values. This whole discussion is like chalking a mud football field in torrential rain storm, with every step the dimensions blur, change and dematerialize.

dk: People lie Dr. Rick, and sexual predators are, as a rule, practiced liars.
Dr Rick: <biting my tongue, biting my tongue...that one is way to easy>
dk: I know you don�t like it Rick, but 75% of all mental desease paddles around the vortex of depression, and depression has one of two causes 1) Faith in something that makes despair impossible to overcome, 2) Faith in nothing that makes despair possible to overcome.

dk: It means psychology journals are unreliable.
Dr Rick: It means that objective scientific studies have practical limits, particularly when it comes to the applied sciences. Those limits are no secret.
dk: It means people can do their best and fail but only a dog returns to eat their own vomit. I have no idea what the practical limits of empirical science might be, it seems to me they change day by day. I do know psychiatry grapples for solid ground with hooks caste into a philosophical landscape that drifts vacuously upon incoherent fault lines.

dk: don�t read into studies what I want to hear.
Dr Rick: Dude, you don't know how to read scientific studies. You don't understand them, nor do you know how to interpret their conclusions, limits, or meaning. (snip)
dk: I love you Dr. Rick.

dk · 06-20-2003, 01:58 PM

(oops double post)

Bill Snedden · 06-20-2003, 06:53 PM

dk:

Do I take it, then, that you have abandoned your original assertions regarding the immorality of homosexuality in favor of a debate on child abuse? Or is this yet another of your diversionary tactics?

If you are still interested in sticking to the topic, there are some as-yet-unanswered questions in my last post on the at-this-point penultimate page of this thread...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk · 06-21-2003, 12:42 PM

Bill Snedden: At any rate, you've either missed the point completely or simply failed to respond to it. Apparently we both agree that no human relationship is completely autonomous. Why then is "autonomous" one of your criteria and what does it mean in relation to the difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships?
dk: The autonomy the nuclear family allows diverse peoples a vehicle upon which to understand one another independent of higher more formal institutions.

dk: The autonomy of the nuclear family rest upon the human life cycle whereas civilization, nations, societies and cultures are contingencies.

Bill Snedden: This sounds suspiciously like an argument from procreation. In other words, "human life cycle" sounds like you're saying that the fact that male-female sexual contact is necessary for procreation renders such contact moral and all other contact immoral. Is that in fact what you're saying?
dk: I have no idea what you�re talking about. I don�t understand the analogy �suspiciously like��. Human sexuality like human beings is very complex. Promiscuous sex puts any sense of a human family at odds with itself absent sound moral teachings.

dk: Gays and lesbian can�t reproduce in and of themselves. The idea of gays and lesbian proliferation raises a number of ethical flags.
Bill Snedden: Again, this sounds like an "argument from procreation". Is that indeed the basis for your argument?
dk: Civilization, nations and all human institutions need the ability to raise healthy children, so it is obviously a vital concern.

Bill Snedden: I'm glad to hear it, but what has that got to do with the question? How are same-sex relationships inherently less stable than opposite-sex ones?
dk: Yes gay communities and relationships are less stable. The instability generated by same sex relationships spills over into the greater society. For example gay communities have been decimated by risky behaviors that threaten the whole society.
Bill Snedden: Immaterial and irrelevant. This is like saying that Roman Catholicism is immoral because of the crusades. We're not talking about praxis or the actions of individuals. We're discussing homosexuality per se. In order to demonstrate a lack of stability, you must show that there is something inherent in same-sex relationships that is less stable than opposite-sex ones. The acts of individuals, even if they were a majority are irrelevant unless they are driven by an inherent characteristic.
dk: Actually we�re discussing the ethics of homosexuality, not homosexuality per se. I�ve contented that homosexuality is an egotistical construct that fundamentally misstates human sexuality, identity and happiness.

dk: I have no idea what you�re talking about. I�ve detailed why the nuclear family serves adequately as the basic unit of civilization. I�ve ground ethics in categories of causation i.e. material, essential, formal and final. So far our discussions haven�t progressed past material and essential causes, and gays and lesbians rank contingent, conceptually flawed and sterile.
You've done no such thing.

Bill Snedden: Your entire schema seems to rest on biological function. We've brought this up before and you've denied it, but after extensive questioning, I'm unable to determine any other basis for your "form". I'm going to try and outline what I believe you're saying in a straightforward, non-jargon-laced manner and you can tell me if I've got it correctly.
P1) Male-female sexual contact is essential for procreation.
P2) Procreation is essential to survival of the species.
P3) Healthy offsping are essential to survival of the species.
P4) Healthy offspring are only ensured in a male-female life-bonded relationship.
P5) Ethics is essential to survival of the species.
P6) Moral status is determined by "fitness" for survival.
C1) Behavior that is not necessarily "fit" for survival is immoral/unethical.
C2) Homosexuality is immoral/unethical
dk: I don�t know who you�re talking about, not me. I�ve simply stated homosexuality has no ethical form, whereas the nuclear family is an ethical form vital to human happiness and civilization. Please engage the debate and offer an ethical form for homosexuality, if you can, otherwise the discussion is over.

Dr Rick · 06-21-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
There has been painfully little research on paraphilia done because its politically incorrect. Here�s the kicker�To my knowledge no study has been commissioned to find a link.

What's "painfully little" is the amount of truth in that assertion.

Here's the pages that pop up when I search the medical electonic database : Search PubMed Protein Nucleotide Structure Genome PMC OMIM Taxonomy Books PopSet GEO GEO DataSets 3D Domains UniSTS Domains SNP Journals UniGene NCBI Web Site Medical Subject Heading (MeSH )for paraphilia

Results: Items 1-20 of 3111 (that's the number of articles and studies in the literature that address "paraphilia" one way ot the other.)

Here's the same thing for the MeSH pedophilia: 473, using the MeSH term child AND molestation (the AND limits the search to articles that have both terms):137 citations, using MeSH term homosexual AND pedophilia: 117, and using the term male AND pedophilia: 414.

Here's what's really been studied "painfully little":
MeSH for Christianity AND pedophilia: 7, none of which were either studies or peer-reviewed.

Quote:

Its no wonder psychology lacks credibility.

It's not "psychology" that's been exposed posting falsehoods on this thread...

Quote:

I love you Dr. Rick.

*shudder* eww, I've got goose-bumps all over...

dk · 06-22-2003, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Dr Rick: What's "painfully little" is the amount of truth in that assertion.dk:
Here's the pages that pop up when I search the medical electonic database : Search PubMed Protein Nucleotide Structure Genome PMC OMIM Taxonomy Books PopSet GEO GEO DataSets 3D Domains UniSTS Domains SNP Journals UniGene NCBI Web Site Medical Subject Heading (MeSH )for paraphilia
Results: Items 1-20 of 3111 (that's the number of articles and studies in the literature that address "paraphilia" one way ot the other.)
Here's the same thing for the MeSH pedophilia: 473, using the MeSH term child AND molestation (the AND limits the search to articles that have both terms):137 citations, using MeSH term homosexual AND pedophilia: 117, and using the term male AND pedophilia: 414.
Here's what's really been studied "painfully little":
MeSH for Christianity AND pedophilia: 7, none of which were either studies or peer-reviewed.

dk: You source. Cycle of child abuse, says in the introduction�
There is a widespread belief among professionals working in the field that in boys there is a causal link between involvement in sexual activities with an older person and subsequently becoming an adult perpetrator of child sexual abuse. However, there is little empirical research evidence for this belief. Hence, it is of considerable social, clinical and theoretical importance to ascertain to what extent perpetrators of sexual abuse have themselves been victims; also, if there is a link, to explore the underlying psychodynamics.-ibid
then in the concluding discussion�
While some aspects of the nature of child sexual abuse have been highlighted, particularly in regard to victims, rigorous studies on perpetrators in the UK are few.- ibid

Quote:

Dr Rick: What's "painfully little" is the amount of truth in that assertion.dk:
Here's the pages that pop up when I search the medical electonic database : Search PubMed Protein Nucleotide Structure Genome PMC OMIM Taxonomy Books PopSet GEO GEO DataSets 3D Domains UniSTS Domains SNP Journals UniGene NCBI Web Site Medical Subject Heading (MeSH )for paraphilia
Results: Items 1-20 of 3111 (that's the number of articles and studies in the literature that address "paraphilia" one way ot the other.)
Here's the same thing for the MeSH pedophilia: 473, using the MeSH term child AND molestation (the AND limits the search to articles that have both terms):137 citations, using MeSH term homosexual AND pedophilia: 117, and using the term male AND pedophilia: 414.
Here's what's really been studied "painfully little":
MeSH for Christianity AND pedophilia: 7, none of which were either studies or peer-reviewed.

dk: You source. Cycle of child abuse, says in the introduction�
There is a widespread belief among professionals working in the field that in boys there is a causal link between involvement in sexual activities with an older person and subsequently becoming an adult perpetrator of child sexual abuse. However, there is little empirical research evidence for this belief. Hence, it is of considerable social, clinical and theoretical importance to ascertain to what extent perpetrators of sexual abuse have themselves been victims; also, if there is a link, to explore the underlying psychodynamics.-ibid
then in the concluding discussion�
While some aspects of the nature of child sexual abuse have been highlighted, particularly in regard to victims, rigorous studies on perpetrators in the UK are few.- ibid

As I said earlier Megan�s Laws and the criminal justice systems keeps pedophilia in the news while researchers tiptoe around the single most critical ISSUE, "ACCESS to CHILDREN". There�s dozens of theories and thousands of permutations about pedophilia in scientific journals sponsored by Feminists, Gay & Lesbian Rights Supporters and traditional psychoanalytical schools of thought, but little empirical evidence available.

Dr Rick · 06-22-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
You source...

...You misinterpret:

Quote:

there is little empirical research evidence for this belief
that in boys there is a causal link between involvement in sexual activities with an older person and subsequently becoming an adult perpetrator of child sexual abuse.

This does not support you false assertion that there is "painfully little" research in the area of paraphilia. There's thousands of articles and studies on it. The authors are discussing the evidence behind the connection between being a victim of abuse and becoming a perpetrator of abuse.

Your assertion is thoroughly refuted with the search results posted above.

Then, in the concluding discussion�

Quote:

While some aspects of the nature of child sexual abuse have been highlighted, particularly in regard to victims, rigorous studies on perpetrators in the UK

You once again ignore the qualifier, and as a result, the meaning of the authors.

dk · 06-22-2003, 11:18 AM

Dr Rick
...You misinterpret:
dk: The rebuttal to my response would be empirical evidence. The lack of empirical evidence makes this a dogmatic debate. The dogma you follow so faithfully, I find fallacious so I wouldn't expect us to agree.

Dr Rick
This does not support you false assertion that there is "painfully little" research in the area of paraphilia. There's thousands of articles and studies on it. The authors are discussing the evidence behind the connection between being a victim of abuse and becoming a perpetrator of abuse.
dk: Research produces empirical evidence, the lack of empirical evidence supports my interpretation.

Dr Rick
Your assertion is thoroughly refuted with the search results posted above.
dk: Your own study says there's little empirical evidence about the "Cycle" of sex abuse, and painfully details the ambiguous ill defined terminology that fractures the science from one study to the next.

Dr Rick: Then, in the concluding discussion�
You once again ignore the qualifier, and as a result, the meaning of the authors.
dk: I have no idea what you�re talking about. What qualifier?

06-20-2003, 01:43 PM	#483
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	Dr Rick: (snip) As dk found out, it's easy to find a site I reference if it's open to everyone or if one already has access to it. dk: If you reference online material its good form to list the URL. dk: That�s what I said, the study had nothing to do with homosexuality, or a possible link to homosexuality. Dr Rick: Wrong. dk: I�ll take that as a dogmatic statement. Dr Rick: As part of the study, the researchers collected excellent data to characterize pedophiliac characteristics. That the study's primary aim was not to establish what is already well-established does not allow one to conclude that the study had no bearing on what is already well-established. dk: I have no idea how data gets a rank of �excellent�, except by duplicating the results. �Referrals came from: medical services (about 47%); psychotherapists and psychologists (11%); social services (about 5%); probation services (about 20%); solicitors (4%); other professional agencies (3%); and self or family referrals (about 9%).� - Study Population From the beginning psychopathology has been hobbled by three impenetrable veils� inaccuracy of recall inaccuracy of inquiry unknown distribution of general population. How ambiguity decays data or emanates from data depends on what the researcher underwrites as a successful outcome. This study gathers data from the perspective of victims and abusers, not just any set of abusers and victims but those that seek treatment at a particular institution located in London. It is absurd to believe, suggest or assert this represents most sexual predators. The question is... Do homosexual pedophiles want help, or more access to children? Dr Rick: In the course of collecting data, the researchers accumulated data that incidently confirms what is already well-established. dk: Ohhh, incidentally�Sadly the word incident in any form doesn�t appear in the study. The authors of the study say, �(SNIP) Further, in typical forensic circumstances, salient psychological information may not be available because certain subjects will be wary of authority and therefore likely to deny or suppress such information. In many cases, the offenders will use conscious denial, suppression or other psychological subterfuges when confronted with the seriousness and legal implications of their behaviour. However, it is less likely that these defences would be employed in a forensic psychotherapy clinic setting where confidentiality was protected. For this reason, it was helpful that clinical material from a large cohort of offenders referred for assessment or therapy at a health service psychotherapy clinic could be studied as there was a better possibility of valid information emerging about the internal psychological world of such offenders.� - ( Introduction last paragraph ibid ) So in reality most data collected on child abuse is coerced or intentionally misleading. No matter how diligent, honest and well intended the researchers they simply lack the discernment to distinguish between the subjects recollections, miscomprehensions and subterfuges. Its no wonder psychology lacks credibility. dk: There has been painfully little research on paraphilia done because its politically incorrect. Here�s the kicker� Dr Rick: If that was the only study on the entire planet done on pedophilia, it could possibly be a kicker. However, hundreds of studies have been done on peodphilia, and no reliable data has been collected that can support an accusation that homosexuals are more likely to assault children. dk: To my knowledge no study has been commissioned to find a link. Dr Rick: Let's look at the reference dk provides but fails to link: it addresses the general category of paraphilia, which includes but is much broader than pedophilia, but does not include any evidence that allows a conclusion that studies directed at pedophilia confirming there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia are invalid. The researcher themselves draw no such inferences. dk: What are you talking about, I�ve been railing against Freud�s egotism, and the spurious incoherent term homosexual. All the research slides upon a circular ruler without a frame of reference, like a slide rule based on amorphous unverifiable logarithm tables. Megan Laws have kept pedophilia in the public eye, not insights from sexologists who spin their wheels on prison turnstiles releasing sexual predators with expert testimony. A couple days ago I read a hysterical article that declared most black and Hispanic minorities homosexual prot�g�s errantly identify themselves heterosexuals because of cultural and sexual values. This whole discussion is like chalking a mud football field in torrential rain storm, with every step the dimensions blur, change and dematerialize. dk: People lie Dr. Rick, and sexual predators are, as a rule, practiced liars. Dr Rick: <biting my tongue, biting my tongue...that one is way to easy> dk: I know you don�t like it Rick, but 75% of all mental desease paddles around the vortex of depression, and depression has one of two causes 1) Faith in something that makes despair impossible to overcome, 2) Faith in nothing that makes despair possible to overcome. dk: It means psychology journals are unreliable. Dr Rick: It means that objective scientific studies have practical limits, particularly when it comes to the applied sciences. Those limits are no secret. dk: It means people can do their best and fail but only a dog returns to eat their own vomit. I have no idea what the practical limits of empirical science might be, it seems to me they change day by day. I do know psychiatry grapples for solid ground with hooks caste into a philosophical landscape that drifts vacuously upon incoherent fault lines. dk: don�t read into studies what I want to hear. Dr Rick: Dude, you don't know how to read scientific studies. You don't understand them, nor do you know how to interpret their conclusions, limits, or meaning. (snip) dk: I love you Dr. Rick.

06-20-2003, 06:53 PM	#485
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	Thrown in the towel? dk: Do I take it, then, that you have abandoned your original assertions regarding the immorality of homosexuality in favor of a debate on child abuse? Or is this yet another of your diversionary tactics? If you are still interested in sticking to the topic, there are some as-yet-unanswered questions in my last post on the at-this-point penultimate page of this thread... Regards, Bill Snedden

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2003, 01:58 PM	#484
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	(oops double post)

06-21-2003, 12:42 PM	#486
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	Bill Snedden: At any rate, you've either missed the point completely or simply failed to respond to it. Apparently we both agree that no human relationship is completely autonomous. Why then is "autonomous" one of your criteria and what does it mean in relation to the difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships? dk: The autonomy the nuclear family allows diverse peoples a vehicle upon which to understand one another independent of higher more formal institutions. dk: The autonomy of the nuclear family rest upon the human life cycle whereas civilization, nations, societies and cultures are contingencies. Bill Snedden: This sounds suspiciously like an argument from procreation. In other words, "human life cycle" sounds like you're saying that the fact that male-female sexual contact is necessary for procreation renders such contact moral and all other contact immoral. Is that in fact what you're saying? dk: I have no idea what you�re talking about. I don�t understand the analogy �suspiciously like��. Human sexuality like human beings is very complex. Promiscuous sex puts any sense of a human family at odds with itself absent sound moral teachings. dk: Gays and lesbian can�t reproduce in and of themselves. The idea of gays and lesbian proliferation raises a number of ethical flags. Bill Snedden: Again, this sounds like an "argument from procreation". Is that indeed the basis for your argument? dk: Civilization, nations and all human institutions need the ability to raise healthy children, so it is obviously a vital concern. Bill Snedden: I'm glad to hear it, but what has that got to do with the question? How are same-sex relationships inherently less stable than opposite-sex ones? dk: Yes gay communities and relationships are less stable. The instability generated by same sex relationships spills over into the greater society. For example gay communities have been decimated by risky behaviors that threaten the whole society. Bill Snedden: Immaterial and irrelevant. This is like saying that Roman Catholicism is immoral because of the crusades. We're not talking about praxis or the actions of individuals. We're discussing homosexuality per se. In order to demonstrate a lack of stability, you must show that there is something inherent in same-sex relationships that is less stable than opposite-sex ones. The acts of individuals, even if they were a majority are irrelevant unless they are driven by an inherent characteristic. dk: Actually we�re discussing the ethics of homosexuality, not homosexuality per se. I�ve contented that homosexuality is an egotistical construct that fundamentally misstates human sexuality, identity and happiness. dk: I have no idea what you�re talking about. I�ve detailed why the nuclear family serves adequately as the basic unit of civilization. I�ve ground ethics in categories of causation i.e. material, essential, formal and final. So far our discussions haven�t progressed past material and essential causes, and gays and lesbians rank contingent, conceptually flawed and sterile. You've done no such thing. Bill Snedden: Your entire schema seems to rest on biological function. We've brought this up before and you've denied it, but after extensive questioning, I'm unable to determine any other basis for your "form". I'm going to try and outline what I believe you're saying in a straightforward, non-jargon-laced manner and you can tell me if I've got it correctly. P1) Male-female sexual contact is essential for procreation. P2) Procreation is essential to survival of the species. P3) Healthy offsping are essential to survival of the species. P4) Healthy offspring are only ensured in a male-female life-bonded relationship. P5) Ethics is essential to survival of the species. P6) Moral status is determined by "fitness" for survival. C1) Behavior that is not necessarily "fit" for survival is immoral/unethical. C2) Homosexuality is immoral/unethical dk: I don�t know who you�re talking about, not me. I�ve simply stated homosexuality has no ethical form, whereas the nuclear family is an ethical form vital to human happiness and civilization. Please engage the debate and offer an ethical form for homosexuality, if you can, otherwise the discussion is over.

06-22-2003, 11:18 AM	#490
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	Dr Rick ...You misinterpret: dk: The rebuttal to my response would be empirical evidence. The lack of empirical evidence makes this a dogmatic debate. The dogma you follow so faithfully, I find fallacious so I wouldn't expect us to agree. Dr Rick This does not support you false assertion that there is "painfully little" research in the area of paraphilia. There's thousands of articles and studies on it. The authors are discussing the evidence behind the connection between being a victim of abuse and becoming a perpetrator of abuse. dk: Research produces empirical evidence, the lack of empirical evidence supports my interpretation. Dr Rick Your assertion is thoroughly refuted with the search results posted above. dk: Your own study says there's little empirical evidence about the "Cycle" of sex abuse, and painfully details the ambiguous ill defined terminology that fractures the science from one study to the next. Dr Rick: Then, in the concluding discussion� You once again ignore the qualifier, and as a result, the meaning of the authors. dk: I have no idea what you�re talking about. What qualifier?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.