Talk about Human Depravity … for Goodness Sake!

[Quid est Veritas?]

Is the abuse increasing though? The international and federal organizations responsible for tracking and combating these things do great work. I have not seen them claiming an actual increase in abuse, per capita or absolute. If anything improvements in reporting, prevention, etc., may have had some success in reducing the incidents.

Research Library - International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

Yes, the article I linked claims, and backs it up statistically, that it is increasing exponentially.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, the article I linked claims, and backs it up statistically, that it is increasing exponentially.

The article claims an increase in the number of online images files portraying abuse. That is very different from an increase in incidents of abuse.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, also, Politically and socially 'abuse' is much much different than reality. And the system of governments and agencies appear to be driven more by money, than by real evidence of any injuries.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, also, Politically and socially 'abuse' is much much different than reality. And the system of governments and agencies appear to be driven more by money, than by real evidence of any injuries.

No, we are talking about real abuse. That much is clear. Some small percentage may be Deepfakes or other CGI, but the vast majority are real.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No, we are talking about real abuse. That much is clear. Some small percentage may be Deepfakes or other CGI, but the vast majority are real.

I'm not talking about fakes, and not saying there are not real issues.

Trouble is, the real issues are hardly ever addressed or handle correctly. Instead, political and social (and religious) "correctness" , and m o n e y , decides how to handle things, and the real problems are not taken care of, while a lot of ones that are unimportant take a lot of time and m o n e y, and more harm is done than any good.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The article claims an increase in the number of online images files portraying abuse. That is very different from an increase in incidents of abuse.

No, it claims increased incidents of abuse, as many of the online communities insist on 'fresh content' to such an extent that they force the raped and tortured children to hold up time-stamped things to prove its recent nature. Further, the amounts are exponentially increasing, so if it was all 'old', you would not expect this. These child torture rings have been running for years after all. Similarly, the 'deepfake' is more a red herring, in my opinion. No, we are looking at a real thing here, that is absolutely horrific.

Looking it up, the National Incidence Study of child abuse and neglect and Child Protective Services in the US, found about an increase on average of about 3.8% yearly since 2011 in instances of abuse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"No creed but Christ"?

Not exactly. Again, the Restorationist Christian Church and the niche teachings of the Campbells has only been ONE of various influences upon me, rather than a totalizing force in my overall philosophy. In fact, it's safe to say that quite a number of various Christian scholars and philosophers of VARIOUS denominational stripes, including Pascal and Kierkegaard, have had much more influence upon me over the years than the Christian Church or the Southern Baptists have had.

This may sound incredibly arrogant, but I have a great of confidence in that assertion.

At least some of us have "come of age".

Philosophically (Axiologically), I'm not sure what "coming of age" can even mean. What? That we can nuke ourselves better?

I believe it was Rudolf Bultmann that said it's impossible to believe in miracles when anybody can go over and turn on an electric light with a flick of a switch.

....... Yeah. And it's that very kind of idea that plays into how I interpret the book of Revelation as well. Interestingly enough, when you brought up Bultmann, I found the following bit of a book I'd never come across before discussing some of the epistemic details of Bultmann's thought in connection to Revelation, and how it compares and/or contrast with a few other prominent theologians. I'm still in the process of reading it ...

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2002034943.pdf

Perhaps he was exaggerating how much mastery we have over the physical world (there's still sickness, old age, and death afterall, to quip from the Buddha), but we definitely do live with more knowledge of the physical world than in the past, and certain explanations are just less-than-convincing.

In a general sense in which we can both recognize the efficacy of modern science and technology, I can concur. But on the political front, I think this world on the whole has a long way to go. As it is, there's a lot of talk among all ideological factions, even Christians, and not a whole lot of beneficial action. No, the world is still looking for a Socialist answer, one that I don't think will come to fruition, not even in some kind of Post-millenial sense.

So... your experience of Carl Sagan's Cosmos was positive?

Oh, for sure! Once I got beyond that little famous quip of his at the beginning of Cosmos I felt I received a good orientation to cosmic reality, despite the accompanying existential angst that accompanied what I thought I was learning form him:

“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us -- there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.”​

And let's just say that because my dad worked for NASA at the time of the first lunar landings, I was brought up to appreciate astronomical progress and space tech, even if I didn't completely understand it.

 

[Carbon]

No, it claims increased incidents of abuse, as many of the online communities insist on 'fresh content' to such an extent that they force the raped and tortured children to hold up time-stamped things to prove its recent nature. Further, the amounts are exponentially increasing, so if it was all 'old', you would not expect this. These child torture rings have been running for years after all. Similarly, the 'deepfake' is more a red herring, in my opinion. No, we are looking at a real thing here, that is absolutely horrific.

Looking it up, the National Incidence Study of child abuse and neglect and Child Protective Services in the US, found about an increase on average of about 3.8% yearly since 2011 in instances of abuse.

Still have to go with the Scottish verdict here, “not proven”.

Taking the logical inference and stats in turn.

On the logical inference, the assumption that cannot be granted here is that an exponential rise in time stamped files automatically equals a corresponding rise in the total amount of novel content. Data glut does not work this way. Counterintuitive though it may be, sites demanding new content are more likely to *not* get new content. An arms race arises between detection and deception which will always incentive and favor those producing (trivially easily btw) duplicates, false time stamps, and splices. Data redundancy may very well comprise a majority of the ~20 zettabytes on the internet in general. The proportion will often be greater on sites specifically policing the difference illicit or otherwise. Data glut is a real thing.

Even if the assumption of increased novel content could be granted, there is still yet another assumption we cannot grant which is that increased novel content automatically equals an increase in overall incidence of abuse. Lots of other explanations are just as likely, like maybe a higher percentage of abusers are posting their content online. This doesn't mean there are more abusers or more abuse. Unless we have data that specifically and directly supports the claim.

On the stats, you say NIS shows an increase in abuse. But I am seeing the opposite. NIS shows a decrease in abuse not an increase.

From NIS-4:

“The incidence of children with Endangerment Standard sexual abuse decreased from 300,200 in 1993 to 180,500 in 2005–2006 (reflecting a 40% decrease in number and a 47% decline in the rate)” [Emphasis added.]

NIS-4 is the most recent NIS publication and it's from 2010 so I am not sure where you are even seeing data after 2011.

The reference to 3.8% is throwing me off too, in several ways actually. A 3.8% increase would not be exponential even if true. And the closest thing I’m seeing to a 3.8% stat in any way related to child abuse for 2011 is from NCANDS not NIS, and it cites an increase in referrals not victimization. Big difference there.

To be clear I am not saying you’re wrong that incidences of abuse are increasing, just not seeing the sources to back up the claim.

The Deepfakes are a total red herring, hopefully it’s clear that was my point. We obviously agree there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Still have to go with the Scottish verdict here, “not proven”.

Taking the logical inference and stats in turn.

On the logical inference, the assumption that cannot be granted here is that an exponential rise in time stamped files automatically equals a corresponding rise in the total amount of novel content. Data glut does not work this way. Counterintuitive though it may be, sites demanding new content are more likely to *not* get new content. An arms race arises between detection and deception which will always incentive and favor those producing (trivially easily btw) duplicates, false time stamps, and splices. Data redundancy may very well comprise a majority of the ~20 zettabytes on the internet in general. The proportion will often be greater on sites specifically policing the difference illicit or otherwise. Data glut is a real thing.

Even if the assumption of increased novel content could be granted, there is still yet another assumption we cannot grant which is that increased novel content automatically equals an increase in overall incidence of abuse. Lots of other explanations are just as likely, like maybe a higher percentage of abusers are posting their content online. This doesn't mean there are more abusers or more abuse. Unless we have data that specifically and directly supports the claim.

On the stats, you say NIS shows an increase in abuse. But I am seeing the opposite. NIS shows a decrease in abuse not an increase.

From NIS-4:

“The incidence of children with Endangerment Standard sexual abuse decreased from 300,200 in 1993 to 180,500 in 2005–2006 (reflecting a 40% decrease in number and a 47% decline in the rate)” [Emphasis added.]

NIS-4 is the most recent NIS publication and it's from 2010 so I am not sure where you are even seeing data after 2011.

The reference to 3.8% is throwing me off too, in several ways actually. A 3.8% increase would not be exponential even if true. And the closest thing I’m seeing to a 3.8% stat in any way related to child abuse for 2011 is from NCANDS not NIS, and it cites an increase in referrals not victimization. Big difference there.

To be clear I am not saying you’re wrong that incidences of abuse are increasing, just not seeing the sources to back up the claim.

The Deepfakes are a total red herring, hopefully it’s clear that was my point. We obviously agree there.

While I can concede that knowledge about the rates of incidence of this kind of human depravity plays a part in our having an awareness of this social problem, for the purposes of this OP thread, I'd be more interested to see what you and @Quid est Veritas? have to say about the reasons why any of this kind of depraved behavior, which secularists would call "crime" and which Christians would call both crime and "sin," exists in the first place, and as to what Metaphysical and Axiological course of treatment you each think should be applied to better understand the issues involved and thereby "do something" about it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

NIS-4 is the most recent NIS publication and it's from 2010 so I am not sure where you are even seeing data after 2011.

They have mandated reports to Congress at intervals, but the Children's Bureau publishes yearly reports.

NCANDS

I didn't read the reports myself, but was working off of a summary thereof compiled by a journalist. Anyway, subdividing child abuse into 'endangerment standard' and then saying that decreased, looks very much like someone jerrymandering statistics to say what they want it to say. Regardless, this is just US statistics - a lot of this is driven by the wealthy paying poor people to abuse their children. Essentially a form of sex tourism, as we see Filipino and Malaysian children abused and so. I read an article a while back of how Australian money was paying for rape images of Filipinos.

It is very hard to get statistics on illegal practices though. A lot is hearsay and conjecture. It is that old adage that if 4 people are busy drowning and three die, then statistically active drowning has decreased. Or how more alcohol was probably produced in the US during prohibition, though the official statistics never reflected this. Quite hard to prove numbers, but not necessary to, as it doesn't change my point though. It is egregious, and seems largely ignored; while everyone is crying crocodile tears over polar bears in their air-conditioned offices sipping imported coffee. I don't think our priorities are straight. Fact is, children are being raped and tortured, and the community spreading these images and driving demand, is large and increasing. Supply usually follows demand. One child is too many already.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

While I can concede that knowledge about the rates of incidence of this kind of human depravity plays a part in our having an awareness of this social problem, for the purposes of this OP thread, I'd be more interested to see what you and @Quid est Veritas? have to say about the reasons why any of this kind of depraved behavior, which secularists would call "crime" and which Christians would call both crime and "sin," exists in the first place, and what course of Metaphysical and Axiological course of treatment should be applied to better understand it and thereby "do something" about it.

Frankly, I don't understand it. Sin seems self-destructive to me. To hark back to the Ancients, to live a virtuous life seems better on all counts. For the fleeting pleasure of say an adulterous affair, will have long term negative consequences on your life that obviously outweigh it. It makes sense to me that Stoic sages could say that if you examined life you would choose virtue.

Take this child abuse. If caught, it would literally destroy your entire life. What are these people gaining? I assume just a minute or so of fleeting thrill. Further, they would not have wished it on themselves either. The risk outweighs the empty pleasure they take, and by doing so, they are robbing themselves of exploring the pleasures of a fully committed relationship with another person.

Sin seems to be choosing a fleeting and unimportant moment, to a sustained good life - Eudaimonia. It is akin to those experiments in delayed gratification where children are offered a marshmallow now, or multiple if they don't eat it for a period of time. It is no wonder even the most materialistic philosophers, such as Epicurus, still did not advocate a sybaritic hedonism.

Even so, I'd be lying if I said I don't sin too. But it feels childish to me, a form of idiocy on reflection. It diminishes the potential of life, in exchange for an immediate dubious reward. Why those 'rewards' can go so off the rails - to the level of child rape - I can only lay the blame on the pernicious effects of previous sin. Sin begets sin, as child abusers are more likely to be abused children themselves. There is a lot of unstated truth in the claim of Sins of the Fathers and Original Sin. Not only from direct upbringing, but from actions of others - any sin we approach, infects us in a way too. Doestoyevsky has that we are all partially to blame for all sin. I can only think that at some point, back into human existence, this cycle of sin started - perhaps even punctuated by specific events of importance. The Genesis narratives seem an archetypal reflection of this, if not a sussuration thereof itself. At some point we fell, and though we realise a moral order of some sort, choose to try and 'cheat' it for a quick win. In the end, the House always wins though, especially if we take it generationally rather than individualistically.

 

[Carbon]

While I can concede that knowledge about the rates of incidence of this kind of human depravity plays a part in our having an awareness of this social problem, for the purposes of this OP thread, I'd be more interested to see what you and @Quid est Veritas? have to say about the reasons why any of this kind of depraved behavior, which secularists would call "crime" and which Christians would call both crime and "sin," exists in the first place, and as to what Metaphysical and Axiological course of treatment you each think should be applied to better understand the issues involved and thereby "do something" about it.

Child abuse occurs for the same general reasons as any immoral action, it’s not a fundamentally special case. Nature creates bad incentives. People are ill-informed. Morality is hard.

Morality is the question of what an informed agent should do next, given her goals, constrained by her freedom, and including the self-recursive step of improving her goals themselves. Immoral behavior exists because every link in this chain is error-prone. Agents often don’t know what a good goal is, how to discover a better goal, or how to achieve it. Maybe you know what is optimally right and how to achieve it, but are unable to do it for lack of money or time or brains. Also we are shooting at a moving target -- behavior that predictably leads to making your spouse happy today might change tomorrow if you have a child, or go to war, or Earth gets hit by a comet. Also evolution saddled us with bugs in our code aka cognitive biases, and ammoral drives. Add in the Hobbesian Trap, prisoner's dilemma, and other social bad incentives and you end up with a theory of the world that predicts immorality as the general rule in all species until they think their way out of it.

The key point being, it’s fallible turtles all the way down. What constitutes good is not obvious. Doing it takes hard work. And much of this work goes against our ape nature. Our story is not of perfect hominids one day falling from grace and sliding ever downward into sin. Quite the opposite. By nature we are prone to all manner of nastiness. Civilizing ourselves into a better world has been a slow painful process over thousands of years, with no end in sight. And no guarantee we won’t slide back.

You might think child abuse obviously sits outside this tangled web of hard morality. Like abusing a child is just so obviously wrong no person could possibly do it, or convince themselves it’s good if they do it. Except that is precisely what these people do. Everyone is the hero in their own play.

Take the worst deviant from the websites referred by Quid. If you were this person, with all their genes and all their experiences, all their atoms, you would be doing the same thing they are doing. And in your mind you would have good reasons for doing it. Count your lucky stars you are not that person.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Take the worst deviant from the websites referred by Quid. If you were this person, with all their genes and all their experiences, all their atoms, you would be doing the same thing they are doing. And in your mind you would have good reasons for doing it.

This is a hard determinist position, for which there really is no evidence. We don't know that given the same experiences, the same genes, the same atoms, that you would act the same way. Many abused children become child abusers, many do not. People from the same household can end up completely at odds.

This is just the old canard of Fate repackaged for an empiricist world. It is a nice way to excuse our faults, but the only reason people merely ascribe all behaviour to either genes or external influence thereon, is a priori. You can only believe this if you ignore human will, conscious reason, and believe consciousness only fashioned passively, instead of an active noumenon.

 

[Carbon]

This is a hard determinist position, for which there really is no evidence. We don't know that given the same experiences, the same genes, the same atoms, that you would act the same way. Many abused children become child abusers, many do not. People from the same household can end up completely at odds.

This is just the old canard of Fate repackaged for an empiricist world. It is a nice way to excuse our faults, but the only reason people merely ascribe all behaviour to either genes or external influence thereon, is a priori. You can only believe this if you ignore human will, conscious reason, and believe consciousness only fashioned passively, instead of an active noumenon.

The claim lacking evidence here is that humans have a supernatural soul. Even then, the existence of a soul does not refute determinism. If you were born with the soul of Jeffrey Dahmer then, granting your supernatural assumptions, you would *be* Jeffrey Dahmer. There is no escaping that our actions are caused with or without supernatural presuppositions.

But I am actually not assuming hard determinism is true in the first place. The realities of morality being discovered not inborn, nature being full of bad incentives, and people being fallible, contribute to human behavior regardless of whether you believe in free will.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The claim lacking evidence here is that humans have a supernatural soul. Even then, the existence of a soul does not refute determinism. If you were born with the soul of Jeffrey Dahmer then, granting your supernatural assumptions, you would *be* Jeffrey Dahmer. There is no escaping that our actions are caused with or without supernatural presuppositions.

But I am actually not assuming hard determinism is true in the first place. The realities of morality being discovered not inborn, nature being full of bad incentives, and people being fallible, contribute to human behavior regardless of whether you believe in free will.

The idea that your behaviour is solely derived from the accidents of birth and events is a silly conceit, in my opinion. Life in general, and history, are full of examples to illustrate. No matter the morbid fascination with serial killers, and there are factors that predispose to certain behaviours, people with similar backgrounds don't necessarily end up the same. I don't need to invoke a soul or any supernaturalism, merely assert that Conscious decisions exist - for which I have ample evidence within myself, first hand.

As the "realities of morality being discovered not inborn", humans remain responsible to how they act. 'Bad' incentives and 'fallible' humans (both implying metaphysical standards by the way) exist, but humans need not kowtow to them. This is the reality of Sin. Infant studies have demonstrated innate preferences for what we term moral behaviour, and most cultures' morality is surprisingly uniform - whether you ascribe that to Evolution or Heaven. Even the strongest Moralistic believers in Fate, the Stoics, held that though we act akin to a dog tethered to a cart, in limited scope of action, will still exists to accept thus or not. Dahmer chose to be Dahmer. Ultimately all will be held responsible, as I believe and my religion teaches, based on what they chose to do, regardless of the differences in material they started out with. It is no excuse of any sort.