sexual abuse, Penn State, Catholic Church, same pattern

Post Reply New Topic

I am sorry this happened to your mother. And I'm sorry the police were so lousy in response.

The police trying to avoid case load, any extra case load, is a big aspect. Plus, I think they very stupidly, very dismissively classify some cases as 'weak' cases. That is, they pre-judge how a jury might view it. Well, a jury might be a little quicker on the uptake than the officer gives them credit for. And the officer is very much afraid of being criticized by other officers, for really, a case that's different or a claimant who is different in any way.

When really, if we were a truly civilized society, the police would be in the business of protecting people who are different, as well as people in general, but especially people who are potentially vulnerable.

It's possible different men with a predatorial mindset targeted your mother because she was different and thus more vulnerable. It's equally likely, since I've read that 1 out of 7 women will be raped at some point in their life, then it follows 1 out of 49 women will be raped twice, 1 out of 343, raped three times, etc, just from plain bad luck, no further explanation necessary. This is terrible and obviously we as a society should do much, much better. If the figure is 1 of 10, then 1 out of 1,000 women will be raped three times, again just from plain old bad luck, no psychological explanation specific to the individual necessary, which I think we tend to overdo in any regard. We should do far better, probably starting with how we socialize boys in childhood and adolescence.

=====================

There is a way to "game" the police, although it should not be necessary, and that is to go in with an advocate.

If the person walks in with their minister, or their older sister, or a former boss, etc, . . . the officer talking the person into withdrawing the complaint, that's now off the table. The officer is likely to intake the complaint in a professional manner. Now, whether they'll follow up is another matter, but at least that first step is completed.

And again, obviously, should not be this way. Whether a person has an advocate with them or not, the police should treat them with respect.

Things like the situations above should never happen! Sorry Jojo....you're mom went through something so horrible & life changing. The police are not always educated enough either. Anyone, especially those who take an oath to protect, to deny sexual abuse or rape, is just as sick as the perpetrator(s). Some are misogynists who hate women, some just don't know any better (poor excuse because there's many resources for education), some are just plain lazy & don't want to do the necesssary paperwork or follow-ups. They'll blame the economy though & say there's not enough money to persue an investigation.

That is amazing and good for you! That shows a lot of heart and a lot of spirit on your part.

Thanks Aardvark. By the age of 12, I was just disgusted by his behavior. I never enjoyed his "affections," though if he were asked, I know he'd say otherwise. I craved acceptance & affection from someone/anyone, because I wasn't getting it from anyone. Molestation was not part of what I wanted. I also didn't want it from him...well into his 40s or maybe even older. It was gross! All I wanted was for someone to like me as a human being & treat me as such.

These kids that Sandusky is accused of sexual deviance were probably looking for someone to like them too. It's an all too common theme for child sexual predators.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/schizoillusion/

For Humans, the present and future and the decisions they make are determined by their past experiences. Per scientific research, when an individual can no longer retain or retrieve memories, they no longer can make decisions. And, emotion is at the base of most human decisions; research shows that those with brain injuries that completely lose their ability to feel emotions, lose the ability to make any decisions, at all, as well.

Mistaking a bear for a large black dog running through the woods, based on what one expects to see from past experience, is a visual illusion not an hallucination, research I presented in the last post about the hollow mask illusion explains this in detail.

The only way billions of humans are going to be murdered by man would be nuclear annihilation; that would come as a result of modern culture. In 1350 there were about 370 million people in the entire world. In 1920 about 2 billion. This billions of human beings thing is a relatively new phenomenon, that started in the last couple of centuries.

That nuclear potential is part of the pandora box of modern culture. The only way to eliminate this potential would be to eliminate modern culture, putting humans back at their primitive state; that's not likely unless some type of apocalypse happens.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/schizoillusion/


You are trying to equate illusions of the senses with cultural illusions again and it's failing. You cannot seem to understand the fact that cultural and social illusions are dangerous, but you instead attempt to keep trying to push in sensory illusions as equivalent. Even then it shows up as laughable because despite your talking of schizophrenics as if they have no illusions it shows up how many kinds of illusion they have.

Even more damning is the fact that you ignore this tidbit

So essentially it further distances the fact between illusions of thought and illusions of sense by showing that people who have illusions of thought about emotions and generally ideas may not have an illusion of sense.

All it proved is that during light conditions that seemed to imply a convex face schizophrenics saw a concave face. This has nothing to do with cultural illusion, and that becomes clear when they talk about delusions in schizophrenics and so forth.

Furthermore the lack of this load of crap having any scientific value can be showed by the comments below:





And the fact is that after that the number of people who talk about whether they are schizo or not is 50/50, not 1-3%.

Last edited by Gedrene on 18 Nov 2011, 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wrooong. You are again completely ignoring the danger of cultural and social illusions that I have brought uop cause untold pain and suffering. I also said millions. Stop trying to use base appeals to emotion by throwing in nukes. We have already seen the heartrending pain caused by delusions to one aspie on this thread, and may others we shall see besides. THere is no good about these kinds of illusions. Give up aghogday. You are defending an immoral position.


Your defense aghogday was of an evil idea.

Last edited by Gedrene on 18 Nov 2011, 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Would you please elaborate on your comment, Gedrene? I'm not sure what you mean.

No no! It was aimed at aghogday. I was saying that it was evil to defend social illusion and try and confuse it with sensory illusion because it caused such pain to you.

No harm done. I was only trying to figure out what your statement meant. Thank you for clarifying it.

Gedrene Wrote:


Maybe you meant to say millions but you said billions.

Being able to discern danger in the woods through top down processing is an evolutionary advantage created by the ability of human beings to see what they expect to see quickly with not thought required. It's an illusion but one that has in part allowed human beings to survive through thousands of years.

There is no evidence of guarantees in life, but the illusion that there is order in life for positive outcomes, is a positive benefit of the human ability to see illusion in the place of stark chaotic reality. When illusion leads to someone being harmed that is never a good thing, and I have never defended that. As with most everything in life, there are pros and cons about human nature, some of which are good, and some of which lead to horrible things for people, that there is no defense for.

And now you're using argumentum ad infinitum again.


No, you have tried to defend cultural illusion and you have tried to say that the only people who do not have illusions are schizophrenics, which sounds like an implicit attempt at denigration.

You have defended cultural illusion as a face of human reality not to be destroyed, and yet now you have retread to saying the affir was terrible and all this ONLY AFTER we hear two heartrending stories about the danger of cultural and social illusion, of illusion in general.

I never said this example was of not being able to process cultural illusion; there are obviously many types of illusions in life other than visual illusions. However the researchers do suggest that in schizophrenics this may be caused by a problem in top-down processing that creates cognitive problems as well for schizophrenics.

The comments are by a bunch of anonymous folks on the internet; they can respond any way they like, but their responses are not representative of the scientists doing the actual research.

There is also evidence that a certain percentage of autistic people cannot see the illusion as well in other research associated with autism.

Not seeing the illusion is not a test for schizophrenia, but it may be caused by differences in the structure of the brain related to schizophrenia, as well as the differences in the structure of the brain of some autistic people.

The test was presented here on this site, and a small percentage of autistic people could not see the illusion. It is suggested that it may be associated with faceblindness in autism and schizophrenia.

I have no idea where you get the idea that 50 percent of people talk about whether they are schizo or not; any research to back up that opinion? Close to 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with schizophrenia. I'm not sure where you are getting the 1 to 3 percent with schizophrenics, that percentage was quoted earlier for socio-paths not schizophrenics. This research states 7 out of 1000, which is close to 1 percent.

Taking drugs affects everything from motor control, senses, thoughts, inhibitions, emotions, logic etc. It's not surprising that the top down processing function of the brain would be interupted by alcohol or drugs and this would impact the ability to see visual illusion.

I never said the only people who don't see visual illusions are schizophrenics, I presented an article that suggested that schizophrenics don't see a visual illusion in the way others do. The article clearly showed that drugs and alcohol can influence this, and there is other research that shows that some autistic people cannot see the illusion as well, which may be associated with faceblindness, seen in some autistic people.

I stated from the very beginning that the cultural illusion surrounding Penn State was obviously a bad point of human succeptibility to illusion, you suggested it was a mild one compared to other things. All human illusions are not bad, this is not a black and white issue.

Visual illusion and the ability to process the world in ways that meet our expectations are of evolutionary advantage for survival. Cultural illusions that provide survival value are good and cultural illusions that lead to harm are bad. I made that clear. I also made it clear that the cultural illusion associated with Penn State was bad and have never suggested that any bad thing that results from human illusions are a good thing.

Then why did you talk about it when we were talking about cultural illusion? Seems you're backpedalling.

Their responses instantly bring the idea in to disrepute by their mixed responses and questions. It shows that the whole system is based on a flawed premise.


You aren't looking properly at what I said:
According to the comments below about who sees concave and who sees convex it is about 50/50 in the comments below.

Don't be pedantic. I still got 1% didn't I?

Ah, here we go. Why is it you say they cannot see the illusion? That makes it sound like a bad thing.

Even more stupid is that the article says that schizophrenics don't see the illusion because they do not have increased brain activity. That is a hilariously flawed idea. It could also mean that they simply do not register a face, convex or concave. The fact that those who talk about seeing concave and convex, or seeing both, shows that the scientists have come to an illogical conclusion.