The Cat Thread, with possibilities of hunting stories involving cats

[Mother]

It is also one thing to say that all/most serial killers/rapists/etc do such and such as a child, but something different altogether to say that all/most children who do such and such become serial killers/rapists/etc...

It is a point that many people fail to grasp.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by GeraldTheMouse

Yes, and I'll bet that if the FBI conducted a survery interviewing 35 inmates about their breathing as youngsters, they'd find a curious similarity in the responses.

Are you for real? How does inate body function compare with observed behaviour?

Stop making absurd comparisions! Comparisions of this sort are no different from those who oppose restrictive gun laws by saying "Automibiles kill more people per annum than guns. Why don't we ban automobiles then?"

Originally Posted by GeraldTheMouse

New rule: Just because a governmental body conducts a survey does not validate its legitimacy.

a. It wasn't a. "survey". The DSM doesn't list it's diagnoses based on surveys.

b. I'm not basing my argument on what the FBI said or did. My initial post mentioned

psychologists and researchers agree that an early tendency to show and display cruelty to animals is one big common trait among serial killers and rapists etc

b. The FBI doesn't validated diagnoses listed in the DSM. Those are based on independent research. Granted not a terrible lot of research has been done on the subject but it's certainly based on more than just a "survey".

Originally Posted by GeraldTheMouse

Likely, a survey of all persons (not just incarcerated criminals) with questions about animal cruelty might be much more illuminating and well worth the FBI's time. It is quite possible that 98% of all children are especially cruel to animals, and thus the propensity of serial killers and rapists toward same activities means absolutely nothing.

Now do you see?

I'm sure I'm still being misunderstood - I was just pointing out that researchers suggest that violent criminals have shown tendencies in the past/childhood of being violent towards animals.

Does that mean every child who is cruel to animals ends up being a violent criminal? No.
Does this mean every violent criminal must have abused animals as a child? No.
Does this mean being a violent criminal requires or is caused by the fact that one abused animals during youth? No.
Does that mean some of those who are cruel to animals end up being violent crominals? Yes.
Does this mean being violent to animals means you'll end up being violent to humans? It's unclear at this point - some do, some don't.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Mother

It is also one thing to say that all/most serial killers/rapists/etc do such and such as a child, but something different altogether to say that all/most children who do such and such become serial killers/rapists/etc...

It is a point that many people fail to grasp.

You'll notice that nowhere did I make such claim.

My only point which could be contentious is:

So they advocate being serious when it comes to kids being cruel to animals

which I honestly don't see anything wrong about simply because:why let a kid be intentionally cruel to animals? If the kid doesn't know that what he's doing is wrong, teach him that it is wrong.

Doesn't it strike anyone strange if a kid is repeatedly violent and cruel to animals?

[stratman]

I, for one, agree with you Simon.

IMO, most kids at sometime or another will do something cruel to an animal, but most will feel remorseful afterward. It's the ones who relish doing it we've got to watch out for.

When I was about 8 or 9, my cousin and I came across a bunch of sparrow nests with baby sparrows. We lined up 5 or 6 and shot them in the head with a BB pistol, play-acting the Nazis shooting Russian partisans. I felt really bad afterward and have always been ashamed of that.

[Chaos Fire]

yes. if you watch court tv, almost all their serial killers were "demented" children

[GeraldTheMouse]

Originally Posted by Simon

Are you for real? How does inate body function compare with observed behaviour?

Stop making absurd comparisions! Comparisions of this sort are no different from those who oppose restrictive gun laws by saying "Automibiles kill more people per annum than guns. Why don't we ban automobiles then?"

Firstly, I didn't make the comparison. Secondly, if you dislike breathing as an example, analyze how many serial killers eat red meat. The numbers you might come up with might seem conclusive, but when data are presented in this form they're pretty much useless.

Thirdly, your comparison to the guns/automobiles analogy misses the point. The absurdity of the gun/automobile analogy is because of a teleological blurring, while the comparison here is merely that of observed behavior that may or may not be universal. The purpose of the argument is not to encourage something like looser firearm restrictions, but rather prudence in the use of statistics, a goal upon which everyone ought to be able to agree.

[Mother]

Originally Posted by Simon

You'll notice that nowhere did I make such claim.

My only point which could be contentious is:

which I honestly don't see anything wrong about simply because:why let a kid be intentionally cruel to animals? If the kid doesn't know that what he's doing is wrong, teach him that it is wrong.

Doesn't it strike anyone strange if a kid is repeatedly violent and cruel to animals?

Nor did I say that you did. I was simply clearing up a fact of probability. It is one that gets blurred very frequently in the media, and as a student of such things I felt it prudent to clarify this.

And Gerald, I cannot agree with you more on your beliefs about the prudent usages of statistics.

[GeraldTheMouse]

Statistics are awesome. Did you know that there are approximately 1,918.5 emperor penguins that live in the Vatican?

[Dr Cheese]

Originally Posted by GeraldTheMouse

Did you know that there are approximately 1,918.5 emperor penguins that live in the Vatican?

Surely they're nuns??

[Bride of a Bull]

There were many nuns around the Vatican in all the time I spent there but I never saw nearly 2,000 of them. Of course, I stuck mainly to the Basilica di San Pietro and La Capella Sistina.

Tons o' nuns, yeah, but 1,918.5? Okay maybe a rather short nun I saw, but never half a nun.

Gatti was a whole other matter. The stray cats of Rome are as wild and beastly as any feral ones found in the...er...wild, and damned scrawny (underfed) for all that. Saw many more of those than 2,000.

Perhaps the statistic was for cats and not penguins? But half a cat or was the whole cat only half seen?

[Deranged]

Originally Posted by stratman

I came across a bunch of sparrow nests with baby sparrows. We lined up 5 or 6 and shot them in the head with a BB pistol, play-acting the Nazis shooting Russian partisans. I felt really bad afterward and have always been ashamed of that.

[GeraldTheMouse]

Simply: There are approximately 424,000 emperor penguins living in the world. There are 221 nations (depending on whose list you look at) in the world. Ergo, statistically speaking, there are approximately 1918.5 emperor penguins living in every nation on earth. Behold the power of statistics.

[Dr Cheese]

You don't see many of 'em round here.

[GeraldTheMouse]

Statistics don't lie!

[Dr Cheese]

Maybe it's the penguins who are lying! Ha, they've had you for a mug Statto me old mucker!