Microwaved pussy!

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

How ? How can they fully understand the repercussions if not fully aware of the reality of something and the consequences of actions ?

As I said I killed a bird with a slingshot, I must have wanted to hurt it or kill it as I wouldnt have done it otherwise. Yet I know I didnt understand what hurting it and killing it really meant at that age. Knowing you shouldnt do something isnt the same as really understanding why.

To expect an 8 year old to have an understanding on a level to be able to call his actions deliberate and evil is ridiculous.

Would you have tortured the bird?

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

How many people in the thread called him evil?

I dunno a few people but my point is in relation to the kid being viewed in terms of an adult and inferring there is an understanding of what he did on that level.

Whether your saying he's disturbed or evil or whatever its the same thing in terms of how your viewing him.

Medusa22

Just because a child doesn't have the same awareness of reality and consequences as an adult doesn't mean that they have zero awareness. Children do have empathy and to be honest, over the age of 5 I think a child should have a reasonable understanding of what the consequences of inflicting pain are, and at 8 years old they most certainly would realise the consequences of putting a live animal in the microwave. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were just two years older than this child when they killed a toddler and they were imprisoned in a juvenile detention centre for their crime. Obviously a judge thought that they were capable of understanding the repercussions of their actions. I know that this is a story about a cat and not a baby, but nevertheless we are discussing the awareness of children.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Would you have tortured the bird?

Maybe I did torture the bird. Maybe the stone didnt kill him instantly and he took a while to die. Thats torture isnt it ?

Brutal Deluxe

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

How many people in the thread called him evil?

2

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

I dunno a few people but my point is in relation to the kid being viewed in terms of an adult and inferring there is an understanding of what he did on that level.

Whether your saying he's disturbed or evil or whatever its the same thing in terms of how your viewing him.

And I glady say that any child at the age of 8 (unless mentally slow or whatever the PC term is) that decides to lock a cat in a container is messed up.
Then to actually try to kill the thing is very messed up.

bluewolf wrote: »

2

Just two? That's not even half the posters.
Scoich, please stop saying we are saying the boy is evil.

Scioch

Medusa22 wrote: »

Just because a child doesn't have the same awareness of reality and consequences as an adult doesn't mean that they have zero awareness. Children do have empathy and to be honest, over the age of 5 I think a child should have a reasonable understanding of what the consequences of inflicting pain are, and at 8 years old they most certainly would realise the consequences of putting a live animal in the microwave. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were just two years older than this child when they killed a toddler and they were imprisoned in a juvenile detention centre for their crime. Obviously a judge thought that they were capable of understanding the repercussions of their actions. I know that this is a story about a cat and not a baby, but nevertheless we are discussing the awareness of children.

Who said they have zero awareness ? The Jamie Bulger case was nothing like this and I dont see what relevance it actually has. They kidnapped, tortured and murdered a toddler. Regardless of their awareness they were guilty of the murder of a human being.

And in terms of the understanding of a child 2 years can make a huge difference in cognitive growth.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Who said they have zero awareness ? The Jamie Bulger case was nothing like this and I dont see what relevance it actually has. They kidnapped, tortured and murdered a toddler. Regardless of their awareness they were guilty of the murder of a human being.

And in terms of the understanding of a child 2 years can make a huge difference in cognitive growth.

So if it's just an animal who gives a damn?

Medusa22

Scioch wrote: »

Who said they have zero awareness ? The Jamie Bulger case was nothing like this and I dont see what relevance it actually has. They kidnapped, tortured and murdered a toddler. Regardless of their awareness they were guilty of the murder of a human being.

And in terms of the understanding of a child 2 years can make a huge difference in cognitive growth.

It is relevant because we were discussing the awareness of children. It is also relevant because they wouldn't have been imprisoned if they were not aware of the repercussions of their actions (inflicting pain and suffering on someone else). So you think a ten year old is aware of the repercussions of killing a child but an 8 year doesn't realise that putting a cat in the microwave will kill it? There is a difference in cognitive growth but it isn't as large as you think.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

And I glady say that any child at the age of 8 (unless mentally slow or whatever the PC term is) that decides to lock a cat in a container is messed up.
Then to actually try to kill the thing is very messed up.

^^^^^^^^^

Just two? That's not even half the posters.
Scoich, please stop saying we are saying the boy is evil.

Messed up, evil, disturbed, sick, potential psychopath, dangerous little shít, keep an eye on him, more than likely murder someone in future. Stating that he knew what he was doing.

People stop trying to ignore the issue. And Bluewolf either get involved and contribute to the discussion or dont. Your simplistic and misleading little additions are really quite pathetic.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^



Messed up, evil, disturbed, sick, potential psychopath, dangerous little shít, keep an eye on him, more than likely murder someone in future. Stating that he knew what he was doing.

People stop trying to ignore the issue. And Bluewolf either get involved and contribute to the discussion or dont. Your simplistic little additions are really quite pathetic.

Messed up is very different from evil.
I knew a messed up kid, used to pretend he was a dog, literally. Still did well into his teens.

He wasn't evil.

I'll be very blunt: he's either very mentally disturbed and needs constant supervision, mentally retarded and needs constant supervision or else a plain little evil bastard that needs to be put down in place of the cat.

I recommend a microwave for however long the cat was in there to teach him some empathy that you feel he's lacking.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Messed up is very different from evil.
I knew a messed up kid, used to pretend he was a dog, literally. Still did well into his teens.

He wasn't evil.

I'll be very blunt: he's either very mentally disturbed and needs constant supervision, mentally retarded and needs constant supervision or else a plain little evil bastard that needs to be put down in place of the cat.

I recommend a microwave for however long the cat was in there to teach him some empathy that you feel he's lacking.

Yeah, the 8 year old is the messed up one. :rolleyes:

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Yeah, the 8 year old is the messed up one. :rolleyes:

Of course he is. He decided to try to torture a kitty cat.

I wonder how you would feel if it was his baby brother or sister?

Oh yeah, because it's so evil if it's a human but who cares if the child assumes murdering things is okay if they're not human.

Scioch

Medusa22 wrote: »

It is relevant because we were discussing the awareness of children. It is also relevant because they wouldn't have been imprisoned if they were not aware of the repercussions of their actions (inflicting pain and suffering on someone else). So you think a ten year old is aware of the repercussions of killing a child but an 8 year doesn't realise that putting a cat in the microwave will kill it? There is a difference in cognitive growth but it isn't as large as you think.

I'm not saying a 10 year is anything I'm saying what those two did and how they were treated is quite unique. You cant assume that because they were treated that way in that unique incident that all 10 year olds are the same. And then you cannot assume if thats the case 8 years must be the same. An 8 year old isnt a 10 year old and not all 10 year old would be viewed as those boys.

noddyone2

Venables et al start by doing stuff like this. Animals first, humans next. Not funny.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Of course he is. He decided to try to torture a kitty cat.

I wonder how you would feel if it was his baby brother or sister?

Oh yeah, because it's so evil if it's a human but who cares if the child assumes murdering things is okay if they're not human.

Your getting hysterical. Nobody has killed any babies. Some people have advocated inflicting harm on children though. But hey, the bastard harmed a cat he deserves it right ? :rolleyes:

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Your getting hysterical. Nobody has killed any babies. Some people have advocated inflicting harm on children though. But hey, the bastard harmed a cat he deserves it right ? :rolleyes:

So just so I understand your point: it's a cat, not a human so it doesn't mean we should judge him as harshly as if it was his baby brother or something, right?

Scanlas The 2nd

Scioch wrote: »

Orim wrote: »

Some 8 year olds do things like this to take pleasure from it.

As I said there just isn't enough information to make an informed conclusion one way or the other.

Hopefully, it is a case of child that messed and has learned his lesson. But it may be that this child has issues and needs to be monitored or otherwise dealt with. I don't know and either can anyone else here.

8 year old taking pleasure from something isnt on the same level as an adult taking pleasure from something. He's a child and cannot be expected to fully understand the consequences of his actions in the same way an adult can.

Even with the details to say he deliberately did it to see the cat die there is still a debate on how that can be viewed. To label him evil without even having anything to suggest why he did it or how he felt about it though is contemptible as far as I'm concerned.

If he was a four year old your ppint would make more sense, but he's 8, he knows what he's doing.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So just so I understand your point: it's a cat, not a human so it doesn't mean we should judge him as harshly as if it was his baby brother or something, right?

My point is it wasnt his baby brother, it was a cat. So lets judge him on the facts of the situation and not make up comparisons to enhance the outrage.

An 8 year old put a cat in a microwave. He didnt kill Jamie Bolger, he didnt kill his baby sibling. He put a cat in a microwave. And he's 8.

Lets not get carried away.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

My point is it wasnt his baby brother, it was a cat. So lets judge him on the facts of the situation and not make up comparisons to enhance the outrage.

An 8 year old put a cat in a microwave. He didnt kill Jamie Bolger, he didnt kill his baby sibling. He put a cat in a microwave. And he's 8.

Lets not get carried away.

No, I want to answer a simple question: would you have cared more if it was a baby instead of a cat?

It's not about comparisions. I'm just curious (since you certainly sound this way) if you feel that we should go easy on the child because it was just a cat.

face1990

The reason I'd be concerned about the child's mental health is that a large amount of serial killers and violent psychopaths have a history of animal abuse during their childhood.
If a child has intentionally harmed an animal, it would be a great disservice to that child (and everyone around them) not to address those potential issues while he's still young.

Maybe the child has a learning disability, but that's not mentioned in the article so we can only assume he doesn't.

Saying the child is 'evil' is a bit extreme, but being worried about the child's propensity toward violence does not mean we're more concerned about the cat. If anything it means we're more concerned about the child. Destructive behaviour like this as a child is indicative of violent behaviour as an adult.
I think it would be negligent not to have the child's mental health assessed. That way you could nip it in the bud, before it becomes anything more than an incident with a cat.

BUBBLE WRAP

face1990 wrote: »

It's different wavelengths.
Now go post on the hilarious misconception thread about how you thought the phrase was 'different wave links'.

Actually, if you had said wavelength it could have been a clever microwave pun.

Damn, If I edited it work it work still?

ScumLord

3rdDegree wrote: »

No kid is that stupid. Your friend is evil.

There's no such thing as evil. She is in her forties now and has had two children of her own and I can tell you for a fact she's not an evil psychopath which is just a complete nonsense to assume in the first place but to be expected from ignorant moralistic keyboard warriors, and you are ignorant in this case, you have no details about either of these stories to be making grand assumptions.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Would you have thrown a cat onto a fire? Or into scalding water?

Not even remotely related. The kid knows microwaves heat things up, he knows that heating wet things makes them dry it's not a huge leap to think a quick zap in the microwave is going to dry the cat because he's not going to understand how a microwave works, there are many adults that don't understand how a microwave works.

Confab wrote: »

Am I the only one who can't understand how an eight year old could get a cat into a microwave in the first place?

Cat's don't know what microwaves do.

syklops

ScumLord wrote: »

I have a friend who did something similar when they where around the same age. They got the cat wet and put it in the oven to dry it. Makes sense to an 8 year old.

Your friend is an idiot, and you must know some thoroughly stupid eight year olds.

syklops

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no such thing as evil. She is in her forties now and has had two children of her own and I can tell you for a fact she's not an evil psychopath which is just a complete nonsense to assume in the first place but to be expected from ignorant moralistic keyboard warriors, and you are ignorant in this case, you have no details about either of these stories to be making grand assumptions.

Strange use of language for a mod.

Zombie Survival

Ah, that explains it.

BUBBLE WRAP

syklops wrote: »

Your friend is an idiot, and you must know some thoroughly stupid eight year olds.

How can you be so sure if you dont know his friend?

OldNotWIse

Deleted User wrote: »

Poor pussy!

But would an eight year old understand what he was doing?

Of course! Would you have done this at 8? More worrying, what will be be doing at 18.....

BUBBLE WRAP

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Of course! Would you have done this at 8? More worrying, what will be be doing at 18.....

I know this chap who is spanish and he used to put dead flies into a model Ferrari. He is now works for NASA. :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

Scioch wrote: »

My point is it wasnt his baby brother, it was a cat. So lets judge him on the facts of the situation and not make up comparisons to enhance the outrage.

An 8 year old put a cat in a microwave. He didnt kill Jamie Bolger, he didnt kill his baby sibling. He put a cat in a microwave. And he's 8.

Lets not get carried away.

"Carried away" is entirely subjective, do not judge others for it.

Jamie Bolgers killers were known to have tortured animals before they "progressed" to killing a human baby.

Tombi!

ScumLord wrote: »

Not even remotely related. The kid knows microwaves heat things up, he knows that heating wet things makes them dry it's not a huge leap to think a quick zap in the microwave is going to dry the cat because he's not going to understand how a microwave works, there are many adults that don't understand how a microwave works.

Maybe the water one isn't related but the fire one is.
Fire is hot, it heats things up. A microwave does the same.
I know very well from around the age of six or seven that you be very careful with things from the microwave or the oven and the likes.

syklops

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

How can you be so sure if you dont know his friend?

At 4 most kids understand that ovens are for cooking food. The dial for an oven starts at around 100 degrees and goes up to about 240. If you are telling me that an 8 year old who knows that 100 degrees is pretty damn hot, and then puts a cat into the oven, he is either a bit unhinged, or not all his dogs a barking. No pun intended.

brummytom

Why do people think 8 year olds are stupid? At 8, I would've known exactly what putting a cat inside a microwave could do. I'm sure I'd have known from the age of 6.

Some people here seem to think 8 years old is the same as a toddler. By that age, they should know full well what's right and wrong.

BUBBLE WRAP

syklops wrote: »

At 4 most kids understand that ovens are for cooking food. The dial for an oven starts at around 100 degrees and goes up to about 240. If you are telling me that an 8 year old who knows that 100 degrees is pretty damn hot, and then puts a cat into the oven, he is either a bit unhinged, or not all his dogs a barking. No pun intended.

Any proof?

OldNotWIse

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

I know this chap who is spanish and he used to put dead flies into a model Ferrari. He is now works for NASA. :rolleyes:

So???

BUBBLE WRAP

OldNotWIse wrote: »

So???

So Buttons! :mad:

ScumLord

syklops wrote: »

Your friend is an idiot, and you must know some thoroughly stupid eight year olds.

My friend was a child at the time, around that age but younger and yes, by adult standards I know loads of stupid children.

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"Carried away" is entirely subjective, do not judge others for it.

Jamie Bolgers killers were known to have tortured animals before they "progressed" to killing a human baby.

This 8 year old stuck a cat in a microwave. That the extent of what we know. Had this been the fifth time it happened and he has shown a tendency to do these things then you can realistically bring up the whole serial killers tortured animals thing. Otherwise its getting carried away as your inferring the kid has motives, behaviours and tendencies you dont know he has.

If he stole a mars bar would you assume he needs help to avoid turning into a thief ? Career criminals are probably known to have stole things as kids too. No, that'd be getting carried away. Logical response would be to discipline him to teach him its wrong.

Myrddin

His parents must have worked so hard getting him off to a great start. Expect to see him locked up for murder in ten years.

CrazyRabbit

I wonder if the cat had clawed the boy or something...i.e, the boy was getting revenge for something the cat did to him? Kids do really stupid things when highly emotional, as they don't have the same control & restraint as adults in similar situations.

Not defending the kid, but it could be an act of anger rather than cruelty, and I think that makes a difference.

ScumLord

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Not defending the kid, but it could be an act of anger rather than cruelty, and I think that makes a difference.

It could have been an act of compassion for all we know. All anyone can do is guess until more details come out.

Myrddin

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Not defending the kid, but it could be an act of anger rather than cruelty, and I think that makes a difference.

Because throwing a bowl of water over the cat isn't cruel enough? There's no excusing the behaviour of the child, kids no right from wrong at that age & this kid is clearly lacking it. Again, great groundwork done by his parents

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

This 8 year old stuck a cat in a microwave. That the extent of what we know

So why are you defending him?
What if it was a baby?

Oh yeah, you don't care unless it's a human.

ScumLord

EnterNow wrote: »

kids no right from wrong at that age & this kid is clearly lacking it.

You say that like right and wrong are fundamental laws of physics. Right and wrong doesn't exist outside of the human head, you don't know what he knows and your making an generalised assumption that every kid in the world would automatically develop the same moral values at a particular age. That's not going to happen. In some countries we'd be giving out the kid didn't skin & gut the cat before putting it in the microwave.

OldNotWIse

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

So Buttons! :mad:

Are you sure you and your friend are not still 8?

Tombi!

ScumLord wrote: »

You say that like right and wrong are fundamental laws of physics. Right and wrong doesn't exist outside of the human head, you don't know what he knows and your making an generalised assumption that every kid in the world would automatically develop the same moral values at a particular age. That's not going to happen. In some countries we'd be giving out the kid didn't skin & gut the cat before putting it in the microwave.

If he planned to eat it, fine. But it sounds like he decided to shove in there for a laugh.

OldNotWIse

Scioch wrote: »

This 8 year old stuck a cat in a microwave. That the extent of what we know. Had this been the fifth time it happened and he has shown a tendency to do these things then you can realistically bring up the whole serial killers tortured animals thing. Otherwise its getting carried away as your inferring the kid has motives, behaviours and tendencies you dont know he has.

If he stole a mars bar would you assume he needs help to avoid turning into a thief ? Career criminals are probably known to have stole things as kids too. No, that'd be getting carried away. Logical response would be to discipline him to teach him its wrong.

So what, its excusable the first four times? You say, "the kid stuck a cat in the microwave, thats the extent of what we know". I say, "the kid stuck a cat in the microwave, thats all we need to know".

I think he is past discipline tbh

Myrddin

ScumLord wrote: »

You say that like right and wrong are fundamental laws of physics. Right and wrong doesn't exist outside of the human head, you don't know what he knows and your making an generalised assumption that every kid in the world would automatically develop the same moral values at a particular age. That's not going to happen. In some countries we'd be giving out the kid didn't skin & gut the cat before putting it in the microwave.

Seriously? This isn't inner Mongolia we live in. Killing/Skinning/Eating an animal for survival/food I don't see an issue with.

What I do see issue with, is cruelty for fun. You can defend it till the cows come home, but you know as well as I do that any child in a first world country who has any raring put into them knows cooking pets for fun is wrong.

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

So what, its excusable the first four times? You say, "the kid stuck a cat in the microwave, thats the extent of what we know". I say, "the kid stuck a cat in the microwave, thats all we need to know".

I think he is past discipline tbh

Your getting carried away again lol.

Sticking a cat in the microwave isnt a history of torturing animals similar to what serial killer or those in the bolger case had shown. No more than me killing that bird with a slingshot is. There needs to be multiple incidents to call it a tendency. So drawing a comparison based on one incident is getting carried away.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Your getting carried away again lol.

Sticking a cat in the microwave isnt a history of torturing animals similar to what serial killer or those in the bolger case had shown. No more than me killing that bird with a slingshot is. There needs to be multiple incidents to call it a tendency. So drawing a comparison based on one incident is getting carried away.

There is a vast difference between you trying to shoot down a bird (which is still hunting) and trying to torture it.

ScumLord

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

If he planned to eat it, fine. But it sounds like he decided to shove in there for a laugh.

EnterNow wrote: »

What I do see issue with, is cruelty for fun.

Neither of you know that's what he did, your making an assumption. You've taken a paragraph and turned it into the back story of a serial killer.