From: u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal/Human Cruelty Links
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:45:50 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia

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

>> = 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.

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.

>>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.

>> 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?

>Final comment:  Get a clue, boys and girls.

Take your own advice.

>John

________________________________
Richard.  u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals