Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And the hypocricy flies. It really does puzzle me how someone with such zest for striking down hypocrites is, infact, one of the biggest on this site.Oh look, kids. PVS missed a part again:
[b]How likely is it that a 3 year old is going to grow up and have a traumatic life as a result of something she/he isn't even old enough to remember or connect feelings to?
It's not a common occurance for adults to retain mass details of things that occur at such a young age. Fair enough, I should have indeed noted that it wasn't likely as opposed to not possible. But what's this!
There are these things called past, present and future tense. I used some in my post, see if you can figure out where and then use that to see where you went wrong in pulling that out. Sweet.
Stats are like a lamp post to a drunk man. More for leaning on than actual illumination. I've said it before and I'm saying it again.
How many adults do YOU know who can tirelessly and effectively remember details so graphically, that it disturbs them? From age 3 or circa that time. When it's speculation all you can do is say likely or unlikely, which is what I did. I said likely. See? Read the quote.
Moreover, you've done the exact same thing no more than a couple posts ago.
When did this become about the amount of parents who contribute to trauma and the amount who don't? It's the effect who those who do compared to those who don't, that I have proposed YOU look into. Come back and join the topic, PVS.
So the little recap didn't work. Cool, we'll go over it again (which I'm surpised at since you already agreed with me):
A parental unit who intervene with their children and continually remind them OF the trauma, will have more of a negative effect than those who do not. Simple logic. It's like on South Park (hopefully not too offensive for you) when Cartman is trying to convince Butters to vote for his side. He emphasises that his side is better and emphasises that Kyle's side is worse. Therefore, Butters is immediately influenced to pick Cartman's one.
Point? If a parent drills it into you that you were sexually abused, throughout your life, then it will quite obviously have a more negative effect that parents who don't emphasise or raise the issue.
I'll let that sink in.
P...PVS? I'm over here. Where are you going? Here, this is my point:
Parental intervention involving the constant reminder of childhood abuse will result in negative outcomes more likely than parents who do not raise the issue all the time. Confirm or deny? (You've already confirmed it, but let's do it for a laugh).
The only one winning is you, and that's for KMC most hypocritical member. Don't foolishly try the age old tactic of trying to underpin some kind of "You're trying to win" schtick against me for the millionth time, PVS. You're better than that surely. I'm just discussing, no winning or losing to me.
So come on, you're not a stupid idiot. It's quite obvious what is the more likely of occurances isn't it? Parents constantly reminding the kid that he was abused will more likely result in trauma than parents who don't continually remind the kid. You don't need to be Stephen Hawking to work it out.
N-not that many was there? Nah. Never mind.
-AC [/B]
you admitted no fault, but rather used an unrelated point to 'win' again. and look how far back you had to dig to still avoid the point.
how desperate can one get