> I do mean to refer to western culture.

Okay... But different cultures (both currently and in history) tell us something about different ways our culture might have gone (with respect to what it values, and indeed with respect to what it considers 'abuse').

> when I said that now we know better, I mean we, in our western culture, have documented the effects of child abuse.

Right... That is controversial, though. See... We have documented effects of what certain things (such as hurricane, tornado, name calling, hitting etc) typically cause... But that doesn't make such acts acts of 'abuse' (as there are more harmful things than 'abuse' e.g., natural disaster, surviving a war). It really is important to note that abuse is not necessary for mental disorder... And that acts that we (in our current culture) consider' abusive' - are not sufficient for mental disorder, either.

> I did not say biological parents and used the term parents loosely---it could have said caretakers, or parental figure.

So there needs to be just one person who children attach to? Having a number of people (of the tribe) who are partially committed isn't enough for the prospect of having a healthy, adaptive, flourishing life???

>> So you want to use the word 'abuse' to refer to events that cause traumatic illness?
>No. I didn't say that.

Ok.

Even though post-traumatic stress disorder was originally intended to apply to 'victims' of natural disaster and to war veterans... Okay...

>> Do acts of nature like hurricane and tornado count as 'abuse' as well, or for an event to be 'abusive' does it require an agent (person) to be responsible for the act?
>I don't think a natural event would be considered abuse. I think abuse is a person-generated event.

Okay. So then abuse is not a cause of post-traumatic stress disorder (causes of that paradigmatically include natural disaster and surviving a war).

>> In order for a person to be abused their abusers needed to have malevolent intent towards them - intentionally desiring to cause them insult / injury / harm etc?
>No I don't believe this to be true either. I think many people have suffered abuse at the hands of persons who didn't understand their actions. Nevertheless abuse occurred.

Hmm.... Then what is the difference between acts caused by an (unknowing) agent and acts caused by a similarly unknowing environment (e.g., hurricanes, earthquake etc). If responsibility for the insult or injury isn't the differentiating factor then what is?


> I think that what I was trying to say is that we have to be vigilant in the here and now in our culture toward acts of blatant child abuse--not cultural differences.

But what I'm pointing towards is that acts that are considered 'blatent' in our times were positively revered in past times. Some cultures thought that incest was perfectly fine. Some cultures thought that marrying off ones pubescent daughter (at 11 or 13) was perfectly fine... Is it that we 'know better' or is it that we 'think different'? The concept of abuse has changed over time to become more expansive and also to comdemn more activities than were condemned in the past. Is it that we think we are 'better' (are more likely to have access to 'the truth') or is it that our perspective is 'one of many'?