Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

No doubt, by now, all of our UK members are thouroughly aware of the details of the case but for our non UK members i'll give some details of it

A little over a year ago a 17 month old boy died from child abuse in Haringey, London...his name was Peter and he died at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and their lodger through either their actions or inaction to stop the abuse.

The details of the abuse are quite horrifying and as such i'll put them in spoilers so that those of you how do not want to read the details don't have to

the tip of one finger had been sliced off with several other finger nails being pulled out and the others blackened by injuries to the fingers. many cuts and bruises on the head and face as well as a partially detatched earlobe that appeared to have been pulled off. a torn fraenulum (the strip of skin that joins the upper lip to the gum (as if it had been pulled and torn. one of his front teeth had been knocked out and subsequently found in his colon after he had swallowed it. several large lacerations to the top of his head. one of which could have been the result of a dog bite. 9 broken ribs and a broken spine after he had been bent backwards over his cot (ultimately what killed him but not instantly...he suffered for a prolonged time after the injury including an inspection by a doctor who missed the ribs and back injury

what makes the case all the more horrifying is that in the time the abuse was taking place there had been over 60 visits by social workers to the family and recommendations by some social workers and doctors to have the baby removed from the mothers custody

the father of baby Peter had been forced by threat of prosecution, to give custody back to the mother after refusing to hand him over because of the injuries he was getting while in her care.

one Doctor at an emergency ward after baby Peter was admitted, did not want to release the baby back to the mother after telling his superiors that he believed the injuries to be deliberately inflicted...he was overruled

all of these blunders and acts of sheer incompetence led to this young boy's death...

in my opinion, the whole thing is a result of a society that has gone so far to be politically correct that everyone is fearful of making decisions or saying anything for fear of offending someone and being sued for making that decision....and as such noone wanted to say enough was enough and that the baby was clearly being abused...because if it turned out not to be the case then the person that made the call would lose their job and no doubt be sued for huge amounts of money

it is this litigation and compensation obsessed, fearful and PC society that we have allowed to get out of control that has resulted in the death of this boy

now i have no doubt there are people in the social work field who do everything they can to ensure the protection of the vulnerable in their area and do great work...and it should be noted that they are overworked and underfunded at the best of times

what is scary is that in the current economic climate, councils in the UK are struggling to balance the books and social work is usually the 1st public service to see cuts made to it in order keep spending in check...with this in mind, i will say here and now that we haven't seen the last example of a child dieing even though people knew of the abuse yet did nothing about it....baby Peter is just the unfortunate poster boy.

That is sickening. I'm lost for words.

Yeah, this is first I've heard of it. Truly horrid. Hope those people get locked up for the rest of their lives.

Originally posted by jaden101
the father of baby Peter had been forced by threat of prosecution, to give custody back to the mother after refusing to hand him over because of the injuries he was getting while in her care.

the mythological belief that children are better with their mothers than with their fathers has lead to countless cases of children suffering.

I wish the courts would get over it. I'm tired of seeing my male friends bend over backward to get custody of their child from a methed out *****.

That makes me f*cking sick to my stomach, literally. Some people are worse than animals. I don't think words exist to describe the sheer satanic nature of their actions. Disgusting.

I'm going to be honest and admit that reading the spoiler text actually made me tear up.

That shit is just horrible. Maybe this type of stuff bothers me more than you guys because my beautiful little girl is just two months younger than that lad was. I couldn't even fathom doing any of that to my little girl.

Just horrible.

I probably shouldn't have read that.













Anyway. Yeah. So, what about the mother? Did someone do that stuff to her? What made her think that doing any of that was okay? Someone had to have done something to her in loads in order for her to end up doing something like that to a small child. Aren't humans programmed to be more altruistic to the young? (not just humans...other apes too.)

Horrific. I don't think it's a case of PC going out of control. In fact it's the opposite, preconceived notions about men and women are what caused this. The treatment may have been affected by women's rights and the civil rights movements but currently it's just sexism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm going to be honest and admit that reading the spoiler text actually made me tear up.

That shit is just horrible. Maybe this type of stuff bothers me more than you guys because my beautiful little girl is just two months younger than that lad was. I couldn't even fathom doing any of that to my little girl.

Just horrible.

I probably shouldn't have read that.













Anyway. Yeah. So, what about the mother? Did someone do that stuff to her? What made her think that doing any of that was okay? Someone had to have done something to her in loads in order for her to end up doing something like that to a small child. Aren't humans programmed to be more altruistic to the young? (not just humans...other apes too.)

I hear ya man, like I said, this made me want to throw up, I had to get up and have a drink of water.

Sometimes, (once again, only an opinion of mine, so dont bight my head off) I think it is appropriate to apply a form of punishment that fits the crime. In this case, something far worse than prison. These are not crimes of passion, nor crimes for personal gain such as theft. They are quite simply animalistic acts of... I don't even know what... violence? Not a strong enough word IMO. I know the problem with capital punishment is the ideal that no human can pass judgment to the extent of taking another humans life as punishment for a crime, but SOMETHING has to give. Throw them in to a pit of fire, I say. F*cking F*CK it makes me so mad.

Originally posted by Kosta
I hear ya man, like I said, this made me want to throw up, I had to get up and have a drink of water.

Sometimes, (once again, only an opinion of mine, so dont bight my head off) I think it is appropriate to apply a form of punishment that fits the crime. In this case, something far worse than prison. These are not crimes of passion, nor crimes for personal gain such as theft. They are quite simply animalistic acts of... I don't even know what... violence? Not a strong enough word IMO. I know the problem with capital punishment is the ideal that no human can pass judgment to the extent of taking another humans life as punishment for a crime, but SOMETHING has to give. Throw them in to a pit of fire, I say. F*cking F*CK it makes me so mad.

Varying degrees of torture are a much better system of law than prison time and capital punishment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Varying degrees of torture are a much better system of law than prison time and capital punishment.

Especially for crimes such as this.

Originally posted by Kosta
How did you find this?

Also, rhyme profiled.

I love Gilbert and Sullivan. First time I saw the Mikado was when I was a kid and music really sticks with me.

Indeed quite horrid, being a UK resident I knew of this before this thread, the worst part is not necesserily the crime since I doubt its uncommon especially amongst the criminal underworld that news may not get to. But the fact these people knew it was happening and did....well nothing...simply claimed "we should take the baby from the mother" only to be overuled, I think they should have ignored that overule if they knew there were major problems.

to bring the point home even more

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45217000/jpg/_45217737_39a46c65-177a-4a32-a196-45371fddac18.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45217000/jpg/_45217849_p226_mirror.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/16/article-1086284-027AAA94000005DC-154_468x334.jpg

yes that's blood on his face in the 3rd picture

the jury were not allowed to see photos of his injuries but what they were allowed was a computer generated image of the extext of his facial wounds

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/nov2008/4/2/8FC57101-EDF4-DFED-D7A55804C0A8BB64.jpg

'Tis horrid, but they deserve to be locked up for good.

Typical reactionary knee-jerking from the British public, of course.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
'Tis horrid, but they deserve to be locked up for good.

Typical reactionary knee-jerking from the British public, of course.

-AC Well, they might...and really "locked up for life" is quite a few shades down from "raped with a 2 foot spiky cock for the rest of their life"...which would be the reaction if someone had touched his penis on top of torturing and killing him. Well, I don't know much about the situation, cause I avoid news as well as I can, but, if it was really done on purpose (and that doesn't look like accidental, abuse), the person should probably be locked up, likely in a mental ward somewhere.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
'Tis horrid, but they deserve to be locked up for good.

Typical reactionary knee-jerking from the British public, of course.

-AC

true but knee jerk reactions from the public are of little consequence...it's the knee jerk reactions from the law makers that always cause the problems

Been reading about this in the papers for a while now. Really sad story. Knee jerk reaction or not I think those responsible should be locked up in prison for the rest of their lives. Not a psych ward or anything, a proper prison. It's just not feasible that all 3 people under the same roof had mental problems, couldn't help it etc.
They tortured and killed an innocent baby that totally depended on them and had no way to defend itself, and had to suffer through things most of us can't even imagine.

I can't believe the baby was visited that many times by social workers and no one sought to take him from his abusers. Surely it's their job to notice cuts, bruises, missing fingertips and nails.

ofcourse its feasable, most people have a reason for doing an action, if its mental health then thats the reason, I can see no real gain from torturing the child from most points of view, the only reason i can think of is that their sick people, thus require mental help/psych ward, a prison would not help them.

i don't think the majority of people care whether they get "help" or not

i'm not against rehabilitation though...but i think it should come AFTER the punishment and not during....particularly in cases as extreme as this

I think protecting society and rehabilitation should always be the first issues that need to be addressed. Ideally, I'd say you don't need punishment at all.

unfortunately we don't live in an ideal society...punishment will always be a more effective deterent against our more primal and animalistic ways...as much as humans like to pretend we aren't animals...we are

Originally posted by jaden101
unfortunately we don't live in an ideal society...punishment will always be a more effective deterent against our more primal and animalistic ways...as much as humans like to pretend we aren't animals...we are The deterent idea of punishment is what I can also see as useful. But there is a line when punishment becomes blind vengeance. And that shouldn't be crossed.

Rehabilitation of a person that commits a crime such as this is nearly impossible. Especially not at their age. It would take brainwashing, which is not rehabilitation. Had a child committed it, or had it been a crime of passion, a petty crime, then maybe, yes. You might be able to get them to see how what they did is wrong and repent, in a sense. However, this is an adult. A fully developed individual. Certain things are hardwired, and one of those is what drove them to commit these heinous acts. You wouldn't be able to rehabilitate a sociopath, or a serial killer, and these people are on par with the one's that committed this crime. Their's is a hunger or addiction for violence that needs to be satisfied, the same as but more severe that an addiction to a drug. Something went horribly wrong early in their development, at a stage where who they are as a human being is decided. Furthermore, the funds that would have to go in to said rehabilitation would be substantial. I agree with the idea that they should get assessed by a trained professional as to the likelihood that they may or may not be rehabilitated, prior deciding what course of action to take. However, not everyone BY FAR can be rehabilitated. Even then a person that is supposedly rehabilitated after committing a crime such as this is not one I would like to see back on the streets where they can possibly re lapse and do it again. Humans are only humans after all, no matter how much we try to glorify our existence. Some are just better than others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The deterent idea of punishment is what I can also see as useful. But there is a line when punishment becomes blind vengeance. And that shouldn't be crossed.

A bit dramatic. And what's the difference, really? I mean their punishment is going to be a long term jail sentence. And whoever is sentencing them could decide they really want to avenge the baby and what's the worst a judge could do to them? Most likely dish out a long term jail sentence.

not to mention that much rehabilitation isn't directed at stopping urges as focusing on helping a person not to act on those urges....at least that's the way they tackle sex offender treatment so it's presumably the same in violent offenders

i don't believe the analogy to drugs is accurate though....drugs can be cleaned out of a body and a person removed from a situation whereby drug taking is likely...the psychological make up of a person is fixed...you cant clean the body and brain of the want to cause harm to others...

Originally posted by The Pict
A bit dramatic. And what's the difference, really? I mean their punishment is going to be a long term jail sentence. And whoever is sentencing them could decide they really want to avenge the baby and what's the worst a judge could do to them? Most likely dish out a long term jail sentence. But there is a difference, revenge is not based on rational evaluation, you could feel anything is justified to avenge that child, the law should not be based on such feelings though.

Originally posted by jaden101
i don't believe the analogy to drugs is accurate though....drugs can be cleaned out of a body and a person removed from a situation whereby drug taking is likely...the psychological make up of a person is fixed...you cant clean the body and brain of the want to cause harm to others...

That's why I said that it is much more severe than a drug addiction and much less likely to be rehabilitated. You are tight though, a better analogy could have been brought forward. It's 2am here, I'm running on empty and emotion at the moment

Originally posted by Bardock42
But there is a difference, revenge is not based on rational evaluation, you could feel anything is justified to avenge that child, the law should not be based on such feelings though.

All law, or punishment rather, to an extent is based on vengeance though, isn't it?. You do something bad, something bad is done to you in return. Just because it is discussed in parliment before it is passed does not make it otherwise.It is still decided by people, just a big group of them taking a vote.

Originally posted by Kosta
All law, or punishment rather, to an extent is based on vengeance though, isn't it?. You do something bad, something bad is done to you in return. Just because it is discussed in parliment before it is passed does not make it otherwise.It is still decided by people, just a big group of them taking a vote.

I think that's a wrong philosophical approach. It's not to avenge the wrong doing that someone should be punished. It's to protect society from further wrong doings by that person.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that's a wrong philosophical approach. It's not to avenge the wrong doing that someone should be punished. It's to protect society from further wrong doings by that person.

That depends on your philosophy, but I respect your outlook. You're a wise one, Bardock. That much is evident.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that's a wrong philosophical approach. It's not to avenge the wrong doing that someone should be punished. It's to protect society from further wrong doings by that person.

Part of the system should also be to deter future crimes from happening. Demonstrating the bloody handed vengeance of the legal system would certainly be a way to make people think twice before abusing children.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Part of the system should also be to deter future crimes from happening. Demonstrating the bloody handed vengeance of the legal system would certainly be a way to make people think twice before abusing children. Yes, I addressed that earlier. It should just be equally applied. You shouldn't make an example out of one and let another go scot-free.

Originally posted by Kosta
That's why I said that it is much more severe than a drug addiction and much less likely to be rehabilitated. You are tight though, a better analogy could have been brought forward. It's 2am here, I'm running on empty and emotion at the moment

Er, I meant you are right, not you are tight . It IS late. I'm off to bed.

Punsihment is not the key, rehabilitation is, punishment could end up simply making them worse.

this is all over the news over here... its tragic... that poor kid...

Not really poor kid ,i cant imagine he knew much of anything if he was battered senseless to death at that age

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really poor kid ,i cant imagine he knew much of anything if he was battered senseless to death at that age

...

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really poor kid ,i cant imagine he knew much of anything if he was battered senseless to death at that age I am pretty sure that babies can feel pain. So, yeah...poor kid.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really poor kid ,i cant imagine he knew much of anything if he was battered senseless to death at that age

He wasn't just battered senseless, he was inflicted with various injuries over an extended period of time.

its true, it would have been far worse if it was an older kid, 4-10 years who knew what was going on. The kid itself in this situation was a baby thus, would not understand what was happening apart from the fact it was recieving pain.

Originally posted by Burning thought
its true, it would have been far worse if it was an older kid, 4-10 years who knew what was going on. The kid itself in this situation was a baby thus, would not understand what was happening apart from the fact it was recieving pain. How is knowing why you are in incredible agony worse than not knowing? Are there any studies on that, cause, now, from my point of view, just being in pain and having no idea what's going on except for it, seems pretty shitty.

Unless you are saying that 14 year olds can feel more pain than 2 year olds (behind blue eyes), if so, I don't know whether that is true, are there studies on the subject or is that a guess?


It would give more fuel to the 14 year old poem-emo group.

because not knowing your going to die, whats harming you etc is better than knowing your going to die, knowing your family are doing this to you. i would certainly prefer not to know or understand whats happeing when ime being beaten rather than knowing.

Originally posted by Burning thought
because not knowing your going to die, whats harming you etc is better than knowing your going to die, knowing your family are doing this to you. i would certainly prefer not to know or understand whats happeing when ime being beaten rather than knowing. That's very subjective.

And either way, even if we assume it would be worse for a 14 year old, it doesn't justify saying this:

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really poor kid ,i cant imagine he knew much of anything if he was battered senseless to death at that age

Originally posted by Burning thought
its true, it would have been far worse if it was an older kid, 4-10 years who knew what was going on. The kid itself in this situation was a baby thus, would not understand what was happening apart from the fact it was recieving pain.

I don't think it would have been far worse at all. An older child would have been able to alert other adults to what was going on. However the baby was totally dependent on the adults who tortured him, he was completely helpless and could do nothing to stop the agonies and injuries being inflicted on him.

His loved ones are at less of an advantage than he is from his death, the kid himself as I explained at that age had little idea of what was going on.

Originally posted by Burning thought
His loved ones are at less of an advantage than he is from his death, the kid himself as I explained at that age had little idea of what was going on. You did not "explain", you "stated". And whether he knew what was going on he certainly felt the pain of what happened.

Originally posted by The Pict
I don't think it would have been far worse at all. An older child would have been able to alert other adults to what was going on. However the baby was totally dependent on the adults who tortured him, he was completely helpless and could do nothing to stop the agonies and injuries being inflicted on him.

Thats not ncesserily true, an older child may have not told anyone due to the fear of another beating and thus knowing fear would be yet another affliction which would make it worse for that child. But the subject was the beating itself of it being worse for an older child, the circumstance is debatable.

Burning Thought: by "not knowing what is going on" do you mean something more like "would not have the same contextual experience and socially constructed family relations as an older child, thus reducing the emotional impact of being betrayed by a mother"?

because, like, the child would obviously know what is going on, and there is evidence that even very young children have some sense of a Theory of Mind, meaning the child might have even known that the mother had a personal motive to hurt it (It clearly would be able to identify its mother and that she was hurting him). I think I get what you are saying, but like, wouldn't the same logic say that its not that bad to torture animals because they aren't conscious like fully developed humans?

I didnt say it wasnt bad, I simply said it would be worse for an older child, the case would be worse and the tortured person would deserve more sympathy.

you said: "Not really poor kid"

I would disagree. I think the lack of any context makes it worse. It is like torturing an animal, it is completely helpless and at a loss.

Sure, there will be some issues for older children regarding parental attachment, but the complete lack of control (control in this case being a general understanding of what is happening in a more abstract sense) would create a situation of incredibly high anxiety in the child, especially given the importance of the parental bond at such a young age.

Yes but from the animals point of view it understands no reason, and most beings are helpless if attacked, a 40 year old guy who has done nothing harder than push pencils for example would be just as helpless as a child if 4 body builders set upon him with steel bats, the diffrence would be the guy would be in more torment since he would be more knowing of whats happening, a child or an animal as your example brings up would have less understanding of whats happening, hell the pain would likely simply be completly instinctual as would their fear.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes but from the animals point of view it understands no reason, and most beings are helpless if attacked, a 40 year old guy who has done nothing harder than push pencils for example would be just as helpless as a child if 4 body builders set upon him with steel bats, the diffrence would be the guy would be in more torment since he would be more knowing of whats happening, a child or an animal as your example brings up would have less understanding of whats happening, hell the pain would likely simply be completly instinctual as would their fear.

Physical pain is automatic. You don't feel any less if you don't understand the reason for it.

yes physical pain, but if you do understand the reason, you can feel more pain mentally, and perhaps even physically since its proven that knowing something happening to you can make it hurt more than not knowing about it. For example this morning I cut my chin shaving, I did not feel anytihng until about 20 minutes later I realised it was bleeding, then I started to feel the pain. I think theres been other ways this has been proven but you probably get the idea.

In the babies case, it does not understand where its going to feel the most pain where as most people could tell you when their older where they feel it would be the most painful.

Then youve got the fact that a baby would not sit there fretting about being attacked again like a toddler would.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Then youve got the fact that a baby would not sit there fretting about being attacked again like a toddler would.

what are you talking about?

a baby would have less contextual experience, thus would be more likely to anticipate an attack, as it would associate it as normal behaviour

also, a grown man is much less helpless against 4 body builders with bats than an infant is. He has far more options, the capacity to reason with his assualters, a chance of escape, etc. All of these things would give him a cognitive sense of control over the situation that a child could not have. A sense of cognitive control is associated with less stress.

Not having control of a situation and having no understanding has been shown to increase stress and "fretting" compared to being informed.

Originally posted by inimalist
what are you talking about?

a baby would have less contextual experience, thus would be more likely to anticipate an attack, as it would associate it as normal behaviour

also, a grown man is much less helpless against 4 body builders with bats than an infant is. He has far more options, the capacity to reason with his assualters, a chance of escape, etc. All of these things would give him a cognitive sense of control over the situation that a child could not have. A sense of cognitive control is associated with less stress.

Not having control of a situation and having no understanding has been shown to increase stress and "fretting" compared to being informed.

How would a baby anticipate an attack? its the same reason why babies will, again and again eat a food that they dont like, hit something that always returns among other pointless things,they simply dont understand.

I was talking in the sense that they were already beating him, their both helpless to such an assault. Not to mention that the guy is more likely to panic at the sight of them adding to stress anyway, he would be fearful as he is backed into a corner that he knows he would have difficulty getting out of, a baby would not understand those things, it would not know much of anything until its actually struck.

Its impossible to threat after an event if you dont really understand what really happened to actually think and fret over it, please explain this to me

Originally posted by Burning thought
How would a baby anticipate an attack? its the same reason why babies will, again and again eat a food that they dont like, hit something that always returns among other pointless things,they simply dont understand.

babies eat food they don't like: really? I can think of many times hearing parents talk about their infants as picky eaters. Also, very young children have no individual capacity to prepare food, thus they are quite limited in their other options.

Hit something that always returns: babies aren't born with a developed motor cortex. Movement like that acts to refine their motor control and integrate sensory experiences into a single percept (ie, proprioception, vision and touch when hitting something).

They don't understand: The actions of children are not caused by their inability to understand. I'm writing a paper on autism and language development right now, and from some of the insight I received through researching this, it seems that a large number of behaviours seen in children are there to increase communication and interaction with the world around them.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I was talking in the sense that they were already beating him, their both helpless to such an assault.

short of making the 40 year old man a low functioning vegetable with the capacity of an infant, he will always be less helpless than a child.

he may be helpless, but the child will always be more so given they are smaller, weaker, more prone to injury, less capable of reasoning etc.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not to mention that the guy is more likely to panic at the sight of them adding to stress anyway,

the stress response you are speaking about is an instant rush of cortisol. In dangerous situations it serves to reduce stress, increase performance, and in this case would produce a higher likelihood of escape.

in a person who is being tortured, cortisol would be released constantly, which would then lead to the problems with stress and anxiety.

Originally posted by Burning thought
he would be fearful as he is backed into a corner that he knows he would have difficulty getting out of, a baby would not understand those things, it would not know much of anything until its actually struck.

Research similar to that done with Little Albert has shown that infants understand fear quite well.

Any child would be intimidated by a group of large men with bats based on simple instinctual drives.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its impossible to threat after an event if you dont really understand what really happened to actually think and fret over it, please explain this to me

well, let me give you a simple example (I need to get back to my paper, though I'm sure this will continue).

1) You walk outside. You are hit in the head by something. You have no idea what it is. Each time you walk outside you are hit by it.

2) You walk outside, someone hits you. You can see them outside and learn new behaviours to avoid what is happening.

which situation is going to cause you less stress? In the first, you have no idea what is happening, and thus will have a high level of what is called cognitive dissonance. Recent research has also shown that lack of understanding or control is related to conspiratorial thinking, so in situation 1) you are likely to start attributing getting hit to other, unrelated things, or just accepting it as part of reality.

Or in the second one, where your fear of getting hit produces behaviour that is able to minimize cognitive dissonance.

When is your paper finished and for the sake of not distracting you ill not post my reply until that very day

post away sir, its nice to have a distraction

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really poor kid ,i cant imagine he knew much of anything if he was battered senseless to death at that age

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Originally posted by Kosta
That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

your sig rox my sox

Originally posted by inimalist
your sig rox my sox

Thank you, I'm glad you like it.

Originally posted by inimalist
babies eat food they don't like: really? I can think of many times hearing parents talk about their infants as picky eaters. Also, very young children have no individual capacity to prepare food, thus they are quite limited in their other options.

Hit something that always returns: babies aren't born with a developed motor cortex. Movement like that acts to refine their motor control and integrate sensory experiences into a single percept (ie, proprioception, vision and touch when hitting something).

They don't understand: The actions of children are not caused by their inability to understand. I'm writing a paper on autism and language development right now, and from some of the insight I received through researching this, it seems that a large number of behaviours seen in children are there to increase communication and interaction with the world around them.



short of making the 40 year old man a low functioning vegetable with the capacity of an infant, he will always be less helpless than a child.

he may be helpless, but the child will always be more so given they are smaller, weaker, more prone to injury, less capable of reasoning etc.



the stress response you are speaking about is an instant rush of cortisol. In dangerous situations it serves to reduce stress, increase performance, and in this case would produce a higher likelihood of escape.

in a person who is being tortured, cortisol would be released constantly, which would then lead to the problems with stress and anxiety.



Research similar to that done with Little Albert has shown that infants understand fear quite well.

Any child would be intimidated by a group of large men with bats based on simple instinctual drives.



well, let me give you a simple example (I need to get back to my paper, though I'm sure this will continue).

1) You walk outside. You are hit in the head by something. You have no idea what it is. Each time you walk outside you are hit by it.

2) You walk outside, someone hits you. You can see them outside and learn new behaviours to avoid what is happening.

which situation is going to cause you less stress? In the first, you have no idea what is happening, and thus will have a high level of what is called cognitive dissonance. Recent research has also shown that lack of understanding or control is related to conspiratorial thinking, so in situation 1) you are likely to start attributing getting hit to other, unrelated things, or just accepting it as part of reality.

Or in the second one, where your fear of getting hit produces behaviour that is able to minimize cognitive dissonance.

Sure, ive got a nephew who eats almost anything for about 5 minutes then spits it out randomly and at other times wont eat it at all, or will eat it, either they dont like the food or their just random.

But they dont know that their developing their motor cortex, their simply doing it since they dont understand

Yes but as i said above, whatever the purpose, they dont understand it, they dont know what their doing is developing them.


It does not matter how prone to injury the guy is, ime sure being smashed repeatedly by 4 guys with steel bats will kill any man. Its unlikely a man while being beaten by 4 guys is going to be trying to reason with them at the same time either, certainly not this cowardly 40 year old guy who is the subject of my example.

Can you show me this "little albert" research please, I find it hard to belive that if I was standing in front of a baby with a steel bat it would realise and anticipate a possible beating or even contemplate such an action.

In the example where the person is fearful, the person is likely to be more bothered than someone who does not know, especially when their of such little understanding as a baby who would likely forget that it was hit given a few hours and continue with whatever it was it was doing. Like on the images a page back, pete has blood around his face yet does not seem to be interested at all, not even troubled, if it was an older child, blood around your face would be more than upsetting, especially if you have a weak stomach.

Originally posted by Kosta
That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Not really, what good is sympathy to someone who is beaten senseless and then killed? they neither feel nor worry about the pain to them and are dead so the sympathy is not worth while anyway.

Baby pete did not likely understand his misfortune either, a baby would not understand a misfortune such as that.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Sure, ive got a nephew who eats almost anything for about 5 minutes then spits it out randomly and at other times wont eat it at all, or will eat it, either they dont like the food or their just random.

Or maybe your single example is meaningless against dozens of examples showing the opposite.

Originally posted by Burning thought
But they dont know that their developing their motor cortex, their simply doing it since they dont understand

Yes but as i said above, whatever the purpose, they dont understand it, they dont know what their doing is developing them.

Yes they do. Have you ever heard of Little Albert?

If you haven't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jones/

The thing is, babies understand fear. Babies can learn. They can suffer plenty.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really, what good is sympathy to someone who is beaten senseless and then killed? they neither feel nor worry about the pain to them and are dead so the sympathy is not worth while anyway.

Baby pete did not likely understand his misfortune either, a baby would not understand a misfortune such as that. It wasn't about sympathy, it was about whether the kid was "poor". Which it obviously was, seeing as he got beaten to death.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or maybe your single example is meaningless against dozens of examples showing the opposite.



Yes they do. Have you ever heard of Little Albert?

If you haven't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jones/

The thing is, babies understand fear. Babies can learn. They can suffer plenty.

Or maybe these dozens of examples have yet to be shown, and no its not meaningless even if there were a 100 examples....

your trying to argue that a baby is thinking to itself "lets develop my motor cortex today"? if not then your "yes they do" did not make sense to me ,but ill read those through.

edit

After looking it through, it does not seem that there is any information that helps your side of the argument from this little albert test, all it shows is that the kid remembered that having objects put in front of him in this room meant that perhaps something loud was going to happen, my argument was based around that a baby is not sitting there thinking and worrying about something happening before it does.

Regardless of any input from this test, one child in this test can hardly be takenas behavior for every one ever to exist or baby peter for that matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It wasn't about sympathy, it was about whether the kid was "poor". Which it obviously was, seeing as he got beaten to death.

That does not make sense to me, how can he be "poor", the only meaing that would make sense is in wealth. Which ofc is not the case, you mean poor as in "pity" but saying he is pity, does not make sense does it... which is why I dont understand you saying the kid was pity....

Also from wikia what it means:




This is my understanding of it as well, and technically the baby is under none of those things since it is now dead.

Originally posted by Burning thought

That does not make sense to me, how can he be "poor", the only meaing that would make sense is in wealth. Which ofc is not the case, you mean poor as in "pity" but saying he is pity, does not make sense does it... which is why I dont understand you saying the kid was pity....


Maybe you should be quiet if you don't know the basics of the language you try to communicate with.


14. unfortunate; hapless: The poor dog was limping.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=poor

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe you should be quiet if you don't know the basics of the language you try to communicate with.


14. unfortunate; hapless: The poor dog was limping.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=poor


Maybe you should be quiet (although technically you should learn your language your using, since ime making no sound that you can possibly hear by replying in this thread) and learn to read through posts, thats basically what my wikia article said, but is baby pete limping/unfotunate now?

no hes died, so technically he is not limping or in pain now....so your not making sense either way.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Maybe you should be quiet (although technically you should learn your language your using, since ime making no sound that you can possibly hear by replying in this thread) and learn to read through posts, thats basically what my wikia article said, but is baby pete limping/unfotunate now?

no hes died, so technically he is not limping or in pain now....so your not making sense either way.

Originally posted by Raoul
this is all over the news over here... its tragic... that poor kid...

This is what you replied to.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really poor kid ,i cant imagine he knew much of anything if he was battered senseless to death at that age

This is what you said

You very clearly stated that you do not think the kid is "unfortunate" (as the word is defined). This is what the argument was about for two pages. You argued babies don't feel the same pain...did you really just miss that and argue for arguments sake?


Your argument that he is not poor because he is dead now and can't feel pain is a recent development. And though I tend to agree that he doesn't mind at the moment, it is still a "poor" kid, due to the circumstances of its life.

I dont see or understand how it can still be "poor" if its dead, that does not make sense at all since its not unfortunate, especially not from its own point of view, so why pity?

I still argue babies dont feel the same pains in all areas that an adult or otherwise would, but my first comment was nothing to do with my arguments the moment.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont see or understand how it can still be "poor" if its dead, that does not make sense at all since its not unfortunate, especially not from its own point of view, so why pity?

I still argue babies dont feel the same pains in all areas that an adult or otherwise would, but my first comment was nothing to do with my arguments the moment.

You do, indeed, not understand what I am saying. The kid was poor because his life was very horrible.

So, you are trying to change the argument. It is silly to argue with you and I will stop it now, as you are either majorly mentally impaired or trying to be aggravating on purpose.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You do, indeed, not understand what I am saying. The kid was poor because his life was very horrible.

So, you are trying to change the argument. It is silly to argue with you and I will stop it now, as you are either majorly mentally impaired or trying to be aggravating on purpose.

But not poor any longer, thus "poor baby peter" is imo now wrong, since he is no longer tormented.

Ive not changed any argument at all, my argument with inimalist has been around whether or not babies feel the same pain as adults or older toddlers mentally, not just physically and overall, who would be more important to sympathise, my first comment such as "not really poor" was taking on the fact that he is now dead wich imo is not "poor" since to me death is not a terrible especially in his case where he was tormented beforehand.

or you are majorly mentally impaired and your impairment leaves you confused and eventually irritated and flustered because of your lack of understanding.

Hooray, KMC has yet another resident stubborn ass.

well whats the point of giving in to nothing? stubborness is important to get a point across, I highly doubt you agree with everything.....

Originally posted by Syren


Hooray, KMC has yet another resident stubborn ass.

He's done this before actually. He's not stubborn so much as he is extremely stupid.

Ive said nothing in this thread stupid, your the one who claimed a baby is going to sit there and contemplate developing its motor cortex durlaugh

although ime prob stupid for answering your childish put down more than anything so far, no need to bring myself to your level....

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ive said nothing in this thread stupid, your the one who claimed a baby is going to sit there and contemplate developing its motor cortex durlaugh

Actually I never claimed that. What I did prove was that a baby can learn and feel fear.

You've also tried this unfortunate tactic before.

Oh...right...it's the "ime" guy.


I forgot

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ive said nothing in this thread stupid, your the one who claimed a baby is going to sit there and contemplate developing its motor cortex durlaugh

I believe it is only I who has mentioned motor cortex development, and that is a very poor characterization of the point I was making by bringing it up

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh...right...it's the "ime" guy.


I forgot

Yeah, his grammar sucks.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I never claimed that. What I did prove was that a baby can learn and feel fear.

You've also tried this unfortunate tactic before.

No you quoted me saying a baby will not think of developing its cortex and you said

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos



Yes they do. Have you ever heard of Little Albert?



its obvious that you are too thick to realise a baby would not contemplate such an action and you did not require to prove that to me, I dont remember denying babies "can" feel fear although if for some reason I belived babies to be fearless beings your evidence was weak either way, maybe like Bardock you suffer from idoicy?

Originally posted by Burning thought
No you quoted me saying a baby will not think of developing its cortex and you said




its obvious that you are too thick to realise a baby would not contemplate such an action and you did not require to prove that to me, I dont remember denying babies "can" feel fear although if for some reason I belived babies to be fearless beings your evidence was weak either way, maybe like Bardock you suffer from idoicy? Please, someone cure me of my idoicy.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No you quoted me saying a baby will not think of developing its cortex and you said

I misread. I thought you were referring to the development of understanding needed to suffer in the same way that an adult can. A point which you had been arguing (very stupidly) for a long time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Please, someone cure me of my idoicy.

dont wory geniouseses like buringthought wil sav uss from are prolems.

you cannot know the internal feelings of an infant, thus it is impossible to know that they are unaware that their movements are developmental (no, obviously they wouldn't know about the motor cortex specifically)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I misread. I thought you were referring to the development of understanding needed to suffer in the same way that an adult can. A point which you had been arguing (very stupidly) for a long time.

oh you misread? damn your stupidity or your eyes, or both....


Ive been argueing rightfully so that a baby does not feel all the mental pain an adult would when near to death, being beaten etc etc

either way youve yet to prove much at all that a baby would feel the same way an adult does when being beaten....

actually, you were arguing with me that individuals who know the reason for their pain undergo more stress than those who do not

nobody has proposed that the subjective experience of pain in a child and an adult are the same.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ive been argueing rightfully so that a baby does not feel all the mental pain an adult would when near to death, being beaten etc etc

either way youve yet to prove much at all that a baby would feel the same way an adult does when being beaten....

Actually you've been arguing wrongly and ignoring evidence. Hence while you have seen fit to insult me without provocation my observation that you are not stubborn but stupid was quite accurate. Not to mention that you have zero evidence to support your own beliefs beyond random anecdotes.

You also can't spell properly and have yet to learn punctuation. (another observation)

That was simply a branching argument, my main argument was that a child such as pete will not feel as much pain overall (mentally included) that an older person would nor would they feel the same torment.

my branching argument is that because baby pete has no understanding of whats really happening due to a lack of knowledge on the matter/development he is not experiancing the loss, pain, sadness, fear of his life the same way an adult would and due to his small mind would worry less.

he is not likely sitting there worrying someone is coming to hit him again. He probably forgets not long after and will only remember when the oppresser returns.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually you've been arguing wrongly and ignoring evidence. Hence while you have seen fit to insult me without provocation my observation that you are not stubborn but stupid was quite accurate. Not to mention that you have zero evidence to support your own beliefs beyond random anecdotes.

You also have no real interest to spell properly and have little care in punctuation since unlike myself you are more interested in the subject of the argument which is probably why I "misread" things. (another observation)

Erm....nice statement, ill simply counter with "i have not been argueing wrongly or ignoring evidence".

No, your observation obviously does not avail you, now your tantrumming like a child which is perhaps why you have such incredible insight into children?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Erm....nice statement, ill simply counter with "i have not been argueing wrongly or ignoring evidence".

No, your observation obviously does not avail you, now your tantrumming like a child which is perhaps why you have such incredible insight into children?

Altering my quotes? I'm pretty sure you're the one having a tantrum now.

erm not really, was this from your incredible observational skills? somehow someone altering a quote is having a tantrum...incredible...

I altered your quote rather than answer it, since its not worth answering, simply mocking.

Originally posted by Burning thought
erm not really, was this from your incredible observational skills?

You're saying you didn't edit my words? Any competent person can go and see that you did exactly that.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I altered your quote rather than answer it, since its not worth answering, simply mocking.

Just like you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're saying you didn't edit my words? Any competent person can go and see that you did exactly that.



Just like you.

I did not deny editing, I was wondering to myself how editing a quote is a sure sign that ime tantrumming


lol to what degree? its obvious that you seem to get something from answering me so its obvious ime worthwhile, otherwise you would not have answered any of my posts.....

this must be some sad side effect of your idoicy...hmm interesting.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I did not deny editing, I was wondering to myself how editing a quote is a sure sign that ime tantrumming


lol to what degree? its obvious that you seem to get something from answering me so its obvious ime worthwhile, otherwise you would not have answered any of my posts.....

this must be some sad side effect of your idoicy...hmm interesting.

Wow, you suck as a troll and a debater. Why don't we have Whirly back?

oh damn, another one of your insults, ouch ouch ouch!

lol....

If ime trolling so are you since I (for some reason) am answering the same idiocy you regurgitated in the last post...

so are sym and Burning thought going to be banned now?

Ime surprised Sym has not before now if he trolls in here with anyone else like he does with me....

hang yourself just a little bit higher there up on your cross, how 'bout?

wow you dudes need a beer beer drunk poor kid and you guys want to wank about trolling...wow

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
wow you dudes need a beer beer drunk poor kid and you guys want to wank about trolling...wow

Correction. Not really 'poor' kid, according to some people here, or some person, rather.

See, the problem here is feminism. Women shouldn't be taking care of children because the belief that females are gentle, kind, incapable of cruelty, etc is the worst kind of politically correct blasphemy. Interesting fact is that most physical injuries inflicted on children are by their mothers, not their fathers. You can't trust a society where women are ever allowed to have their way. The fact that Western society, especially British, is one where the man automatically loses for no logical reason whatsoever is a perfect example of why things like this happen. And then we'll hear a bunch of female nonsense about how it's not the murderer's fault because she's a woman and therefore innocent. Surprise surprise, she'll get away with it without breaking a sweat. We need to violently ditch the Satan-spawned liberal evil that is political correctness once and for all.

way to not understand even the most basic forms of feminism

for instance: feminists are also insulted by the idea that they are these motherly, soft, breeders. Feminists want equality in the court systems, and believe the idea of a child always going to its mother is a stereotype from hundreds of years ago.

Originally posted by inimalist
way to not understand even the most basic forms of feminism

for instance: feminists are also insulted by the idea that they are these motherly, soft, breeders. Feminists want equality in the court systems, and believe the idea of a child always going to its mother is a stereotype from hundreds of years ago.


They believe no such thing. Feminism isn't the belief that women are people. It's the fascist ideology that they're the mistress race. Feminism is the belief that men are less than people, less than human. Feminists don't want equality in the courtroom unless by "equality" you mean "omnipotence". Any man who doesn't know this is the one who doesn't understand. If you think feminists aren't monsters then I guess a black guy should think the Ku Klux Klansmen are his friends as well. Feminists are not, have never been, and will never be anything but Nazis. Those bloodsucking, hypocritical, soulless she-harpies from the blackest pit in all of Hell should go straight back where they came from and take any man who sides with them, with them. The only goal of these hairy she-monsters is to make our lives miserable, make us weak, and make us powerless.

studies show feminists have much more sexually fulfilling relationships than women who don't consider themselves feminists.

other than that, your rambling is inane

Originally posted by inimalist
studies show feminists have much more sexually fulfilling relationships than women who don't consider themselves feminists.

other than that, your rambling is inane

That makes sense as they would be more likely to speak up on what they want. That's sexy to me. I don't like 'em shy in the bed.

There was a really horrifying case of child abuse her in New Zealand. A three year-old was abused by her mother's partner and his younger brother and his partner. The girl had suffered horrific abuse. She had been put in a clothes-drying machine and the button was pushed on, put on a clothes line and then they spun it round and she fell off, they often practiced wrestling moves on her, and often threw things at her. The partner eventually ended up kicking her in the head repeatedly. She went uncouncious and they kept her in bed for a couple of days, refusing to take her to the hospital. Her condition worsened and she was foaming at the mouth and having seizures and wasn't responding to having cold water washed over her, so they eventually took her to hospital and she went into a coma and died a few days later. All of them were just convicted of guilty of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse just last week. It's a well-known case her in NZ. They did many more horrible things to here, but some of which I don't remember.

That sounds more like a sundance film plot than it does reality.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That makes sense as they would be more likely to speak up on what they want. That's sexy to me. I don't like 'em shy in the bed.

indeed, it makes sense to rational people

however, to those who think feminism=bull dyke, it should come as a surprise

I love feminists... except my goddamn ex...

Originally posted by UKR
They believe no such thing. Feminism isn't the belief that women are people. It's the fascist ideology that they're the mistress race. Feminism is the belief that men are less than people, less than human. Feminists don't want equality in the courtroom unless by "equality" you mean "omnipotence". Any man who doesn't know this is the one who doesn't understand. If you think feminists aren't monsters then I guess a black guy should think the Ku Klux Klansmen are his friends as well. Feminists are not, have never been, and will never be anything but Nazis. Those bloodsucking, hypocritical, soulless she-harpies from the blackest pit in all of Hell should go straight back where they came from and take any man who sides with them, with them. The only goal of these hairy she-monsters is to make our lives miserable, make us weak, and make us powerless. You don't know much at all, do you?


You obviously don't grasp the most basic ideas of feminism. Though, unlike inimalist, I don't really love feminists. I believe that they are too one sided and some that call themselves feminist, kinda lost track of what the idea of feminism is. Now, I think like any other civil right group, it is not necessarily bad to have such focussed groups, but on the whole it just seems to me that anyone that solely focusses on women's rights, gay rights, race rights is putting an undeserved focus on one particular part of civil rights over another, usually do to being part of the oppressed group. Obviously easy for me to say being a white male between the age of 20 and 40 ermm

by feminism, I generally am refering to "old school" types, much like Wendy McElroy who is quoted in my sig (and of course Emma Goldman).

The piece that quote is from is McElroy responding to modern feministic anti-porn staces, where she supports individual freedom.

There are 2 groups, and I'm not saying your criticism isn't apt Bardock (it is), just that I would largely share it with you.

I couldn't disagree more, and I think you made a really dogmatic, black-and-white statement. People have every right to focus solely on the biggest problem if their life. Are you saying homosexuals should just stop focusing solely on homophobia because there are 'larger' problems out there? These people are treated like second-rate citizens. They aren't allowed to marry, could be fired from their job for being gay (not in my country, that's illegal, but not in the US) and half the people they meet probably judge them based on nothing but their sexual orientation. They're looking to be treated equally, and they have every right to. If that's the one problem in their life they want to focus on, so be it.

what he is saying is that by specifying "homosexual rights" the whole message is much more limited rather than specifying "human rights". At least, imho

Originally posted by BlackC@
I couldn't disagree more, and I think you made a really dogmatic, black-and-white statement. People have every right to focus solely on the biggest problem if their life. Are you saying homosexuals should just stop focusing solely on homophobia because there are 'larger' problems out there? These people are treated like second-rate citizens. They aren't allowed to marry, could be fired from their job for being gay (not in my country, that's illegal, but not in the US) and half the people they meet probably judge them based on nothing but their sexual orientation. They're looking to be treated equally, and they have every right to. If that's the one problem in their life they want to focus on, so be it. I never said that they can't focus on it. I even specified that I very well understand why, but...what inimalist said...I believe that "human rights" is the issue. As do many in those groups, who very much argue for all civil rights.

But I agree with you, as I said I sympathise with them. If someone pissed on my lawn every morning I'd probably focus on eliminating that problem, even if there's someone that shits on my neighbours lawn every day as well.

Feminism in reality is far from the definition offered by some people in this thread. It isn't a "mistress race", no matter how the far rights like Mr. Limbaugh want to make it out to be. It's very much rooted in equality. The only reason people like Mr. Limbaugh gain a foothold in explaining it as a female-dominationnn ideology is because there are always men who think women should have and know their place, just like there's always an audience for the kind of stupidity we see in some people when they say that blacks will get uppity because of the election of Obama. It's the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" mentality in it's most absurd form.