From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Animal/Human Cruelty Links
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:35:02 GMT

Richard Barry Ling writes:

>> = John S. Van Etten drools messily down his chin:

Hey, at least I try to blot it up afterwards. :-)


>>> = Ferrell S. Wheeler spews forth:
>
>>>This paper examines the relationship between childhood cruelty toward animals
>>>and aggressive behaviour among criminals and noncriminals in adulthood.
>>>
>>>Data were derived from personal interviews with 152 criminals and non-criminals
>>>in Kansas and Connecticut. A standardized, closed, and open-ended interview,
>>>requiring approximately 1-2 hourse to complete, was administered to all
>>>subjects. Aggressiveness was defined by behavioural criteria rather than reason
>>>for incarceration.
>>>
>>>Childhood cruelty toward animals occurred to a significantly greater degree
>>>among aggressive criminals than among nonaggressive criminals or
>>>noncriminals.
>
>>There is *nothing* that shows that cruelty towards animals implies cruelty
>>towards humans, or that a lack of respect for animal rights implies a
>>lack of respect for human rights.  And a bunch of psych studies on
>>violent criminals abusing animals, as well as people, is bogus
>>"evidence."  Grow up, kiddies.
>
>As a hunter, you may have noticed that a significantly greater number of
>animals which are shot die than those which aren't.  You may or may not be
>able to deduce from this that being shot is dangerous.  According to your
>logic, this does not classify as "evidence" that being shot is dangerous.
>If you therefore have no evidence that being shot in the head is dangerous,
>please feel free to try it and see.

Now you've got me really confused.  The fact that criminals that beat
people also beat dogs and cats came glaring right out at me as a valid
conclusion.  I believe I stated that, did you miss it?  Can you please
point out the flaw in the logic that I used to reach such a
conclusion?  Thanks.


>The above is an observation that a significantly greater number of the
>criminals are cruel to animals than were the non-criminals.  This could not
>have happened unless a significantly greater number of those who were cruel
>to animals were criminals rather than non-criminals.  If your brain can come
>up with any relationship there, good on you.

We all expect violent criminals to be cruel, and as I stated, the
evidence does indeed point out that criminals that are cruel to humans
are also cruel to pets.  I still don't see any relevancy to the topic
being discussed here in t.p.a.


>>>Additionall, the occurrence of more than 40 cases of extreme animal cruelty
>>>facilitated the development of a preliminary classification of nine distinct
>>>motivations for animal cruelty. Finally, family violence, particularly
>>>paternal abuse and alcoholism, were significantly more common among aggressive
>>>criminals with a history of childhood cruelty toward animals.
>
>>Again, that fact that some guy that beats his kids also beats his dog
>>really doesn't shock me.  It sure doesn't imply that beating his dog
>>means he's going to beat his kids.  Observation: isn't it a shame that
>>they don't make psych majors take enough logic courses?  Perhaps
>>that's yet another reason why it's not a science. ;-)
>
>Observation: Exactly who is drawing the conclusions here?  Were the psych
>majors supposed to make logical conclusions?  They merely tabulated the
>facts, and came up with the statistic above.  You're free to draw whatever
>you want from that statistic.

You conveniently deleted the title.  Also, to quote the text below, "A
clear relationship was found between early substantial abuse and
recurrent violence against people."  Now this is pure bullsh-- on the
psych major's part.  They showed a relationship between "recurrent
violence" and "early substantial abuse," *not* the other way around.
And I hate to break the news to them (you) but A-->B doesn't mean
B-->A.  I thought they even covered that one in the intro to logic
courses.  The education system is indeed going to hell.


>>> In the present study, extensive
>>>interview schedules were administered to aggressive criminals, nonaggressive
>>>criminals, and noncriminals. The nature of abuse was described for each subject
>>>who gave a history of substantial abuse. A clear relationship was found
>>>between early substantial abuse and recurrent violence against
>>>people.
>
>>Again, the guy that beats other people used to beat his dog.  You
>>folks are going to have to do a lot better than this before I start
>>worrying that my girlfriend (a fellow deer hunter) is thinking of
>>putting me on the lunch menu tomorrow. :-)
>
>Yeah, right. He's saying that, because a kid who tortures animals grows up
>to beat his wife more frequently than one who doesn't, then logically a
>person who shoots deer for food will begin shooting humans for fun? Maybe
>he's talking about those who simply abuse their pets for fun. Cruelty to
>animals for the hell of it. Cockfighting and dogfighting amongst criminal
>organisations, etc.
>
>But as a hunter, you're so paranoid everyone's an AR fanatic out to get you,
>you want to associate everything Wheeler posts as being anti-hunters, right?

Forgive me, Richard, but the common attitude towards hunters in this
newsgroup is indeed that we go out and kill animals "just for the
hell of it" and because we "think it's fun."  So my comments as
expressed here include that prior knowledge.  Are you honestly naive
enough to think that Ferrell didn't blow this spoot here for a reason,
rather than just to get both sides to band together against criminals
that are violent?


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals