Cat Cruelty

[blueheaven]

There have been dozens of studies since MacDonald came out with his findings. Nearly all of them support the idea that there is a correlation between killing animals and killing humans. And no, I am not talking about insects. Insects do not have the ability to show pain, and therefore are not fodder for these studies. When asked why they killed animals, many sociopaths said they were fascinated by the reactions to pain the animals gave. They generally progressed from things like mice and hamsters onto cats and dogs. Jeff Dahmer's house was littered with the corpses of dozens of cats when police searched his home. He was still killing animals when he was committing those murders.

In the public school system, we label this phenomenon as conduct disorder, and these children are kept in self-contained classrooms away from other kids. They are often violent, disaffected, and indifferent toward authority.

From the Hellman and Blackman study...

"A study of 84 prisoners shows that out of the 31 charged with aggressive crimes against the person, three-fourths had the triad of enuresis, firesetting and cruelty to animals whereas in the 53 subjects accused of a nonaggressive crime only 15 had either the triad or a partial triad. It is postulated that the presence of the triad in the child may be of pathognomonic importance in predicting violent antisocial behavior."

So, is 75% enough of a majority?

[teggacat]

Thank You Blueheaven!!! Well Said!!

[Killua]

Like has been said before, no one is disputing that there is a strong correlation. What is disputed is that a majority of those who commit violence against animals go on to commit violence against humans. 75% of violent offenders having tortured animals is not the same thing at all. This is not enough of a majority for me because it's the wrong majority.

[MDKiller1]

Hey all

I wasnt going to post here but I decided too

I dont know how many of you ever watch the animal cops show on Animal Planet. But on that show most people who kill/hurt animals get up to a 1000 dollar fine and up to a year in jail.

There was also another show on Animal Planet the other day of a basket ball player (Michael Vick) who was caught fighting dogs.

People hurt and kill animals everyday the only reason these cases are on the news is because the person is famous.

Anyways to my point alot of times on the animal planet show it says that if you can hurt an animal you will most likely do it again. An on some other shows ive seen they have said in "some" cases when people get tired of hurting animals they will move to small children.

I myself have been having a problem with the guy that lives next door to me (I believe most of you have seen the post) he went from poisoning my dog trying to kill it. To threating me and messing with me.

So in my opinion I do believe that people who hurt animals can end up hurting a person..However not all people do it.

[blueheaven]

Like has been said before, no one is disputing that there is a strong correlation. What is disputed is that a majority of those who commit violence against animals go on to commit violence against humans. 75% of violent offenders having tortured animals is not the same thing at all. This is not enough of a majority for me because it's the wrong majority.

What you are asking is impossible and completely unethical. You are asking a psychiatrist to do a long term study of child animal abusers to see if they grow up to be violent toward humans. That means that we would need a testing group, a control, and the removal of several variables to ensure accurate data. This would also mean that the people doing this test would have to refrain from treating children with violent tendencies toward animals in order to get proper data. That would be horribly unethical. It is far better, when you know the outcome, to test for causation.

I don't know how 75% could not be enough of a majority. If I was going surfing, and was told that 75% of the surfers who entered the water this week died by shark attack, I'd go miniature golfing instead. However, that is just my interpretation of a majority. And, maybe, I'm just a huge wuss.

[RoboFlonne]

From the Hellman and Blackman study...

"A study of 84 prisoners shows that out of the 31 charged with aggressive crimes against the person, three-fourths had the triad of enuresis, firesetting and cruelty to animals whereas in the 53 subjects accused of a nonaggressive crime only 15 had either the triad or a partial triad. It is postulated that the presence of the triad in the child may be of pathognomonic importance in predicting violent antisocial behavior."

So, is 75% enough of a majority?

Unfortunately... Correlation does not imply causation {Also Taught in Psychology 101}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in the sciences and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. Its negation, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

For example I could take a survey of 100 Serial killers, and 100 of them breathe air.

There is a 100% correlation between breathing air and becoming serial killers.

But it would be absurd to say that breathing air causes serial killing.


You can not prove a causation with these type of statistics...

[Olivier]

What you are asking is impossible and completely unethical. You are asking a psychiatrist to do a long term study of child animal abusers to see if they grow up to be violent toward humans.

He didn't ask for any study to be done on the subject. He just said you were not talking about the same thing at all.
You say "75% murderers kill animals too", fine, but that's NOT the point at all. You are taking the problem the wrong way around.
The relevant question is "What is the percentage of people killing animals who actually end-up killing people?". We can't answer that question of course, but in my opinion it is very low. A few percent at most. Therefore, still in my opinion, NO, the majority of people cruel toward animals does not move-up to killing human beings. But I accept your point that most murderers move down to animals. It's just the opposite.

[blueheaven]

That is EXACTLY what is is asking in order for him to be convinced. The only difference between your opinion and mine is that I have empirical data to prove mine. It is everyone's right to have an opinion. However, not all opinions are created equal.

[RoboFlonne]

The only difference between your opinion and mine is that I have NO empirical data to prove mine.

Corrected your typo...

Unfortunately... Correlation does not imply causation {Also Taught in Psychology 101}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation

[Killua]

Like has been said before, no one is disputing that there is a strong correlation. What is disputed is that a majority of those who commit violence against animals go on to commit violence against humans. 75% of violent offenders having tortured animals is not the same thing at all. This is not enough of a majority for me because it's the wrong majority.

What you are asking is impossible and completely unethical. You are asking a psychiatrist to do a long term study of child animal abusers to see if they grow up to be violent toward humans. That means that we would need a testing group, a control, and the removal of several variables to ensure accurate data. This would also mean that the people doing this test would have to refrain from treating children with violent tendencies toward animals in order to get proper data. That would be horribly unethical. It is far better, when you know the outcome, to test for causation.

This is not true at all. Statistical science isn't stuck in the dark ages. All you need is data for what percentage of people have committed animal abuse, and then data for what percentage of those have also committed violence against humans. You don't need to track people as they grow up. There aren't really any variables you'd need to eliminate, and you don't need a control group, because what you'd be testing for is simple correlation, not causation.

I don't know how 75% could not be enough of a majority. If I was going surfing, and was told that 75% of the surfers who entered the water this week died by shark attack, I'd go miniature golfing instead. However, that is just my interpretation of a majority. And, maybe, I'm just a huge wuss.

I don't think you're actually paying attention to the argument at all. To use your metaphor, the only data that has been presented so far says that 75% of those who've been attacked by sharks are serious swimmers. does this mean a majority of serious swimmers have been attacked by sharks? Of course not. There are many majorities if you look at statistics from certain angles. All Olivier said was that there wasn't proof so far that a majority of animal abusers were also human abusers. Your data isn't on point.

[Killua]

Unfortunately... Correlation does not imply causation {Also Taught in Psychology 101}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation

Olivier did not raise a point of causation, though, he raised a point of correlation. Correlation is a simple thing to figure out, and my initial point was that I could find no data that correlated the population of animal abusers to animal abusers who've also committed human violence. BH's and others have presented data that correlates those who have committed animal violence and human violence against those who have committed human violence.

[RoboFlonne]

Unfortunately... Correlation does not imply causation {Also Taught in Psychology 101}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation

Olivier did not raise a point of causation

Actually the argument Is 100% a Causation argument.

People who abuse animals usually move up to PEOPLE.

It is 100% a Causational Statement that People move up from Animal Abuse to People Abuse.

I understand why you're confused, It's easy to confuse Causation and Correlation...

Because of the word "MOVE UP TO PEOPLE ABUSE" the statement is definitely a causation statement.

If it was worded: People who abuse animals also abuse people that would be correlational.

I haven't been to a psychology class in years so, I hope I explained it well enough...

[sletia]

The links I posted stated that the murderers did the violent acts towards animals AS CHILDREN, and THEN the crimes towards humans were when they got older. The links also say stuff such as

Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty toward animals don’t stop there; many of them move on to their fellow humans.

The links did not say "oh by the way, they like to torture animals too" they're saying things such as "as children they set their family dog on fire."
I don't know what else you guys want for proof, honestly, and I'm not going to keep on trying to find links if you're being this stubborn about it. Sheesh.

[blueheaven]

And all I am saying is the data that you want is not only unreasonable, but unethical. But please, present your data that supports your opinion. Oh right, you have none. Oh well.

Ray Yan(no typo there), the correlation/causation argument is spot on...except that we are not talking about a clinical trial or scientific experiment. These are psychological studies, and therefore not held to the same scrutiny. In order to do that, we would have to operate under the assumption that we have as full an understanding of the human brain as we do of the rest of the body, which we do not. In my job, if a student is having anti-social behavior issues and will not talk about it, I schedule a conference with the school psychologist. He then assesses the student for symptoms, and based on those symptoms diagnoses the cause. How can he do this? Well, there is a vast list of known causes to several psychological problems in children based on the correlation between the cause and the symptom. So, in a psychological study, correlation can indeed imply causation. In fact, it's the backbone of the practice!

Remember, when Hume published his findings, psychoanalysis was not even a refined practice. So, his theory was not meant to be applied to psychoanalysis. But please, keep using Wikipedia. It's such an awesome tool. All you have to do is Google the words "causation" and "correlation" and you can find a way to make an argument that you believe makes you look intelligent. However, for those of us who did study child development and psychology(my minor was in counselling), we have our old textbooks and hours of class time to pull from.

As for Killua: You won't be convinced no matter how much research is done because you choose not to be convinced. Period.

[RoboFlonne]

And all I am saying is the data that you want is not only unreasonable, but unethical. But please, present your data that supports your opinion. Oh right, you have none. Oh well.

my name(no typo there), the correlation/causation argument is spot on...except that we are not talking about a clinical trial or scientific experiment. These are psychological studies, and therefore not held to the same scrutiny. In order to do that, we would have to operate under the assumption that we have as full an understanding of the human brain as we do of the rest of the body, which we do not. In my job, if a student is having anti-social behavior issues and will not talk about it, I schedule a conference with the school psychologist. He then assesses the student for symptoms, and based on those symptoms diagnoses the cause. How can he do this? Well, there is a vast list of known causes to several psychological problems in children based on the correlation between the cause and the symptom. So, in a psychological study, correlation can indeed imply causation. In fact, it's the backbone of the practice!

Remember, when Hume published his findings, psychoanalysis was not even a refined practice. So, his theory was not meant to be applied to psychoanalysis. But please, keep using Wikipedia. It's such an awesome tool. All you have to do is Google the words "causation" and "correlation" and you can find a way to make an argument that you believe makes you look intelligent. However, for those of us who did study child development and psychology(my minor was in counselling), we have our old textbooks and hours of class time to pull from.

As for Killua: You won't be convinced no matter how much research is done because you choose not to be convinced. Period.

Remove my name...

Blueheaven has been Sending me Disgusting Hatemail and Stalking me ever since I bought $400 worth of sketches from Blueheaven who said that The sketches were FAR MORE then $400. Then After I bought them he Boasts about how the sketches are only worth $250.

Blueheaven has been stalking and even threatened to post my name, address, and call me...

Just last week blueheaven sent a disgusting message calling Killua a "F#cking tool" and "Misogynist Pig".

I have evidence to prove all of this... If you want to see the evidence, pm me.