Cat Cruelty

Cloud · Post by **Cloud** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:53 pm

A lot of hard work.

Killua · Post by **Killua** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:19 pm

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

I hope you don't believe that. I accept your studies for what they say completely. You are simply misinterpreting them. Honestly, this is a basic logical fact and has been reiterated by Olivier and me. I don't really know how I could put our point any simpler than we already have. But I'll try.

Your studies give us the result in percentage form of: (people who have hurt animals and humans)/(people who have hurt people). This seems to be a pretty significant number, in your studies 75%. Neither he nor I have contested these.

What Olivier wanted proven is that: (people who have hurt animals and people)/(people who have hurt animals) is greater than 50%. He rather doubts it is greater than 50%, and personally so do I, but I could find no data concerning this. Nobody has posted any studies that gave us this data. Gathering this data wouldn't of necessity violate any ethical rules. It'd actually be a rather simple affair.

To RF, you raise an interesting point in the causation. I actually didn't really pay any attention to the "move up" language. Reviewing it, I don't believe it was intended to imply causation. More of a before and after thing, which is correlation. In any case, Olivier certainly interpreted it as being a correlation assertion, and that's what I was referring to.

kittens · Post by **kittens** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:12 pm

I am a bit busy so I will not do any serious research on publications (I am too busy with my research

). But I did a quick search on google scholar (this is the best way to search peer-review publications) and I found tons of (also there are many papers cited to other papers).

So in this case, I would really conclude that there seems to be a strong correlations between animal crueity and violence. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... ty&spell=1

I am not sure what it means but definitely there seem to have some strong correlations.

Also talking about 75% is high enough or not. I think it depends what method was used. So I cannot say for sure (because I do not know the mean of controls which is very important). From then I need to know the sample sizes of the data (also it would be nice to see how they corrected the data).

But ethical points of view we cannot really do experimental design. So all you can do is to collect data from existing data and get some statistics as accurate as possible.

IMO I think 75% shows pretty strong correlations.....

Also like I said I think this study is VERY important to direct children and education right way.....

Killua · Post by **Killua** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:16 pm

I don't think there's a single person in this thread who is denying that there is a strong correlation.

klet · Post by **klet** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:47 pm

blueheaven wrote: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.

Okay. They don't have the data that supports the original opinion given. Here it is:

Olivier wrote:
sletia wrote:People who abuse animals usually move up to PEOPLE.
Don't think so.

But, you don't have the data that supports the opinion sletia gave, either.

sletia wrote:People who abuse animals usually move up to PEOPLE.

You gave data that supports the following:

"People who kill people usually start with animals" (paraphrased).

You cannot reverse a statement like that and still claim that it's true. That's a logical fallacy. Sorry.

You have said yourself that there is no data one way or the other about whether people who hurt animals usually hurt people later on. You have given plenty of data proving that people who hurt people usually have hurt animals in the past. Just because all squares are rectangles does not mean that all rectangles are squares.

You guys are arguing over semantics. You have said yourself that there is no way to prove or disprove sletia's earlier statement, which was:

sletia wrote:People who abuse animals usually move up to PEOPLE.

That's the statement in question, and proving something else does nothing.

Killua · Post by **Killua** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:53 pm

I think Klet put it more clearly than I.

sletia · Post by **sletia** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:53 pm

Y'know what? This is why I don't post much..

kittens · Post by **kittens** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:10 pm

Sorry to be picky

(and I still like you klet

But as a statistician I have to add something

)

klet wrote: "People who kill people usually start with animals" (paraphrased).

I think this statement is also not really clear. There is only an evidence of some correlations between animal abuse and violence toward people. This is it.

I think everyone here loves animals and we totally agree on animal abuse is wrong and people who abuse them should be punished (and this is totally illegal in the US).

So I think we should stop auguing?

I think the most important thing is to teach children that abusing animal is totally wrong......

klet · Post by **klet** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:35 pm

kittens wrote:Sorry to be picky (and I still like you klet But as a statistician I have to add something )

klet wrote: "People who kill people usually start with animals" (paraphrased).
I think this statement is also not really clear. There is only an evidence of some correlations between animal abuse and violence toward people. This is it.

Don't worry, kittens. I still like you, too.

I was just trying to state the argument BH and sletia were providing data for as simply as possible.

I'm all about language, not statistics. Which is why I think it's silly that people were fighting over this to begin with. I know that the statement I used was a gross oversimplification. So was the original statement in question.

Sletia, sorry to quote you so much. I know it sounds like I was trying to rip you apart. I was just trying to point out that people were arguing over something, but really agreeing. I don't know, does that make sense? Sorry if I made you feel bad.

moonrabitt · Post by **moonrabitt** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:28 am

I think that even 1% is outrageous....
I think that we should rephrase it....
People who "seriously"(meaning beating, killing) torture animals MAY end up killing people.....I won't add any Figures or percentages since it
s impossible to know the true figures...We could just guess....because I'm sure that we don't know about the MAJORITY of animal abuse since people close to the abuser keep it hush-hush....and family don't like to rat each other out...Similar to the high percentage of Family raping and how the whole family keeps it quiet..

What Olivier wanted proven is that: (people who have hurt animals and people)/(people who have hurt animals) is greater than 50%. He rather doubts it is greater than 50%, and personally so do I, but I could find no data concerning this. Nobody has posted any studies that gave us this data. Gathering this data wouldn't of necessity violate any ethical rules. It'd actually be a rather simple affair.

I'm not sure if it's over 50% But I'll search...

But you have to admit that the DATA is damming...
Not sure what percentages you want me to find...but I'll re-read the thread and see what I find....

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 am

blueheaven wrote:That is EXACTLY what is is asking in order for him to be convinced.

Again: he didn't ask any study to be done. This is just you making an assumption. Show me where he asks a study to be done on the subject

sletia wrote: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."

Well, you just don't see our point, although we repeated it over and over again! This is just amazing. Let me say it again:
Someone wrote that amongst a population of 100% murderers, 75% of them started violent acts against animals AS CHILDREN.
This is NOT the statistics we are looking for. What we want is: "Amongst a population of 100% people who did violent acts towards animals as children, how many percent of them end-up killing humans?" this percentage corresponds to the "many" in the sentence:

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.

We are debating about this "many". Some of us believe it is high, probably > 50%, and others like me believe it is low, probably < 5%.
None of us can tell for sure, since we don't have the data to answer that question. It is not possible to know of every single disturbed kid who sets his dog or cat on fire in the country. Unless he actually kills someone, people who know about this will not always report him to the authorities - this is wrong but true: you don't send your own kid to prison because he killed the family pet.
All I am saying is that the 75% that was mentioned earlier is the answer to another question.

moonrabitt · Post by **moonrabitt** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:40 am

This is NOT the statistics we are looking for. What we want is: "Amongst a population of 100% people who did violent acts towards animals as children, how many percent of them end-up killing humans?" this percentage corresponds to the "many" in the sentence:

Well...not only abusing animals as children, but also abuse on animals as adults and then hurting people....I'll look for the statistic....but even then we don't have the whole number, just the people who are caught....

Nearly all children go through a stage of "innocent" cruelty during which they may harm insects or other small animals in the process of exploring their world. Most children, however, with guidance from parents and teachers, develop empathy for the pain animals can suffer. Some, however, become locked into a lifetime pattern of cruelty.

Well....Okay..not all the children....

Alberto Desalvo, the self-confessed 1962-63 "Boston Strangler" who killed thirteen women had,as a youth, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes.

Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985, was one of the most prolific killers in moden history. His first act of violence as a child was to strangle a cat.

I'm just saying that if a kid tortures an animal..and I mean VERY cruelty like shooting the thing or beating it to death.....then they will most likely grow without empathy...and without empathy you can't feel what people feel and then may end up killing someone...

Maybe this can help:

Most animal murders will not commit sensational murders, but they have already taken a step on the path of violence. Ground-breaking studies by psychiatrist Alan Felthous and others, indicate that many criminals that have been violent toward people share a common history of brutal parental punishment and cruelty to animals. Yet, even today, it is not unusual to find school and judicial systems in which animal abuse is not taken seriously.

Looking for the other numbers....

http://www.vospca.org/archive/abuse.html

Cloud · Post by **Cloud** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:40 am

Interesting question. What for?

moonrabitt · Post by **moonrabitt** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:13 am

For what????

As you can see in this graph:
http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_ ... &year=2008
The highest levels of animal cruelty are around the ages of: 31-40

Now if you see this graph:
http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_ ... urring.php
You see that about 42 out of 251 cases are actually violent...(I won't even add the 6% Bestiality rate 0_o) So...let's see... This graph shows that about 1/6th of the cases involve real abuse....

Now see this graph:
http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_ ... arties.php
If the abuse is reported mainly by neighbors ( 43.3% ) and only by family (3.8%)of family...which spend the most time with the abuser, you can see that it's highly likely that there is a whole bunch of more abuse going on.........

I also doubt that we will be able to find the statistics you seek....
This one....:

"Amongst a population of 100% people who did violent acts towards animals as children, how many percent of them end-up killing humans?"

We can find statistics on:
# of murderers that used to hurt animals
# of people who abuse people and animals

sletia · Post by **sletia** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:47 am

Olivier wrote:
blueheaven wrote:That is EXACTLY what is is asking in order for him to be convinced.
Again: he didn't ask any study to be done. This is just you making an assumption. Show me where he asks a study to be done on the subject

sletia wrote: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."
Well, you just don't see our point, although we repeated it over and over again! This is just amazing. Let me say it again:
Someone wrote that amongst a population of 100% murderers, 75% of them started violent acts against animals AS CHILDREN.
This is NOT the statistics we are looking for. What we want is: "Amongst a population of 100% people who did violent acts towards animals as children, how many percent of them end-up killing humans?" this percentage corresponds to the "many" in the sentence:
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.
We are debating about this "many". Some of us believe it is high, probably > 50%, and others like me believe it is low, probably < 5%.
None of us can tell for sure, since we don't have the data to answer that question. It is not possible to know of every single disturbed kid who sets his dog or cat on fire in the country. Unless he actually kills someone, people who know about this will not always report him to the authorities - this is wrong but true: you don't send your own kid to prison because he killed the family pet.
All I am saying is that the 75% that was mentioned earlier is the answer to another question.

I said I wasn't arguing anymore, alright? Just leave me alone already. I guess your child or as a child you killed a family pet or something, because you seem pretty darn defensive and adamant about all this being disproved. If it was me I would have just said "I don't agree with you" and let it go..