Microwaved pussy!

Zoria

Jogathon wrote: »

An 8 year old would understand that this would kill the cat.

Exactly, it's not like he forget he left a spoon in a bowl he was heating up. It was a deliberate act, and a scary one at that.

Bruthal

Lars1916 wrote: »

Or with the parents? I would tell my child quite clearly, that neither a microwave, not a cat is a toy.

When would you tell him this, after he put the cat in it, or just for no reason?

steddyeddy

robbie7730 wrote: »

When would you tell him this, after he put the cat in it, or just for no reason?

Seriously is that a joke? You would tell him that putting a cat in a microwave is wrong in order to prevent him doing it again.

Undiscovered

I'd be seriously concerned if I were the child's parents. Cruelty to animals is an early warning sign for psychopathy and other antisocial behaviour disorders.

If he had enough understanding to operate a microwave then I'm sure he must have some idea of what he was doing and should have known better.

Tombi!

robbie7730 wrote: »

When would you tell him this, after he put the cat in it, or just for no reason?

He'd have to work his way up.
I mean maybe he put in a kitten, then I'd tell him not to put a cat in.

Colmustard

What a horrible way to go, I imagine the child's parents, they must be sick with worry and imagine their little darlings life of prison ahead of them.

steddyeddy

The FbI use animal abuse reports as a method of narrowing down serial killers:

The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.

Scioch

steddyeddy wrote: »

The FbI use animal abuse reports as a method of narrowing down serial killers:

Beginning of the paragraph you quoted from.

Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty.

I think the repeated animal cruelty is the key.

Colmustard

Scioch wrote: »

Beginning of the paragraph you quoted from.



I think the repeated animal cruelty is the key.

I don't know if one of my nephs or nieces did this I would be very worried about them. He had to have known it was going to hurt.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Beginning of the paragraph you quoted from.



I think the repeated animal cruelty is the key.

So we should see if they abuse animals many times?

Bruthal

steddyeddy wrote: »

Seriously is that a joke? You would tell him that putting a cat in a microwave is wrong in order to prevent him doing it again.

Well the poster said there must be something wrong with the 8 year olds parents. This would presumably be because the 8 year old microwaved a cat. And that he/she would do better, by telling their 8 year old that a cat or a microwave is not a toy.

Now, is it only after their child first microwaves a cat, that there must be something wrong with the parents, and then the child should be told microwaves and cats are not toys, or is it after subsequent microwavings?

You getting the gist yet??

steddyeddy

Scioch wrote: »

Beginning of the paragraph you quoted from.



I think the repeated animal cruelty is the key.

In the mind of those disturbed enough to torture animals whats the difference between the first tortured animal and the second, third ect? Would it not be wise to catch him at the first and pre-empt the rest?

Scioch

Colmustard wrote: »

I don't know if one of my nephs or nieces did this I would be very worried about them. He had to have known it was going to hurt.

All I'm saying is that unless he has a habit for doing it he has no more in common with serial killers or violent criminals than anyone else.

Once incident like this isnt enough to label an 8 year old kid a nutbag or messed up or a potential serial killer.

I dont think he needs to do anything but learn from the incident, I'm sure the realisation of what he actually did to the cat would be enough to get through to him how wrong it is.

Colmustard

Scioch wrote: »

All I'm saying is that unless he has a habit for doing it he has no more in common with serial killers or violent criminals than anyone else.

Once incident like this isnt enough to label an 8 year old kid a nutbag or messed up or a potential serial killer.

I dont think he needs to do anything but learn from the incident, I'm sure the realisation of what he actually did to the cat would be enough to get through to him how wrong it is.

Yeah that post changes my mind, I agree.

Scioch

steddyeddy wrote: »

In the mind of those disturbed enough to torture animals whats the difference between the first tortured animal and the second, third ect? Would it not be wise to catch him at the first and pre-empt the rest?

He's a kid, all he has to do is learn not to do it. He's not on a list of possible serial killers as your making out. Your post was about people who had histories of repeated animal abuse. That doesnt apply to this kid.

Again your calling a child disturbed because he did something stupid. I'd agree with you if this was a tendency of his but its not as far as we know. So why are you treating it as if it is ?

steddyeddy

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well the poster said there must be something wrong with the 8 year olds parents. This would presumably be because the 8 year old microwaved a cat. And that he/she would do better, by telling their 8 year old that a cat or a microwave is not a toy.

Now, is it only after their child first microwaves a cat, that there must be something wrong with the parents, and then the child should be told microwaves and cats are not toys, or is it after subsequent microwavings?

You getting the gist yet??

I am indeed thanks. I didnt say the parents are bad though I maintain what the parents will do next will indicate their merit as parents.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So we should see if they abuse animals many times?

......... before claiming he's showing behaviour similar to that of serial killers.

Finished that sentence for you. I'm not saying allow him to abuse animals, why would I ?

Bruthal

steddyeddy wrote: »

I am indeed thanks. I didnt say the parents are bad though I maintain what the parents will do next will indicate their merit as parents.

I realise that.

But there was an irony in a poster saying there must be something wrong with the parents, for their child to microwave a cat, and then say they themselves as parents would ensure they tell their child a microwave and a cat is not a toy,,, surely something they would only say after their child does the same deed, in which case there must be something wrong with them as the parents.

Thats all.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

......... before claiming he's showing behaviour similar to that of serial killers.

Finished that sentence for you. I'm not saying allow him to abuse animals, why would I ?

You're saying "let's hope he doesn't do it again".
Don't fix my sentences, I said what I mean.

steddyeddy

Scioch wrote: »

He's a kid, all he has to do is learn not to do it. He's not on a list of possible serial killers as your making out. Your post was about people who had histories of repeated animal abuse. That doesnt apply to this kid.

Again your calling a child disturbed because he did something stupid. I'd agree with you if this was a tendency of his but its not as far as we know. So why are you treating it as if it is ?

Your putting words in my mouth. I didnt say he was disturbed. At this stage how would I know. I maintain that its no harm to get him assessed. For his well being more than anyone elses.

ScumLord

Colmustard wrote: »

He had to have known it was going to hurt.

That's not a certainty, all he would know is it heats things up, hair-dryers heat things up and we point them at our heads to dry ourselves off.

steddyeddy wrote: »

In the mind of those disturbed enough to torture animals whats the difference between the first tortured animal and the second, third ect? Would it not be wise to catch him at the first and pre-empt the rest?

You don't know he was trying to torture the cat.

Do parents actually bring their young kids around the house explaining what every appliance does, how it does it, what the correct use of the appliance is and what it's not used for? Or do they just tell them to stay away from them?

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

You're saying "let's hope he doesn't do it again".
Don't fix my sentences, I said what I mean.

The conversation is about comparing his behaviour to the past behaviour of serial killers. I was putting your response to my post into the context of what we were discussing.

Yet your still hell bent on claiming I'm saying something else. No matter what course of action you take your hoping he doesnt do it again.

You seem though to trying to make out that my view is ignore the whole thing.

steddyeddy

robbie7730 wrote: »

I realise that.

But there was an irony in a poster saying there must be something wrong with the parents, for their child to microwave a cat, and then say they themselves as parents would ensure they tell their child a microwave and a cat is not a toy,,, surely something they would only say after their child does the same deed, in which case there must be something wrong with them as the parents.

Thats all.

Ah I get you I apologise!

Scioch

steddyeddy wrote: »

Your putting words in my mouth. I didnt say he was disturbed. At this stage how would I know. I maintain that its no harm to get him assessed. For his well being more than anyone elses.

I wouldnt say you shouldnt do that but I dont think its a given that you should. I didnt mean to put words in your mouth I was just stressing the point that as you say we dont know anything much about the kid other than he did this one thing. And this one thing to me doesnt compare with the histories of repeated animal cruelty you spoke about in relation to serial killers so I'm not sure of the relevance of those points.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

The conversation is about comparing his behaviour to the past behaviour of serial killers. I was putting your response to my post into the context of what we were discussing.

Yet your still hell bent on claiming I'm saying something else. No matter what course of action you take your hoping he doesnt do it again.

You seem though to trying to make out that my view is ignore the whole thing.

Which it is. Well, your view is basically "tell him not to do it again and all's well". Am I wrong?

You don't seem to think he should be given to a therapist or anything. You seem to think that if you tell him not to do it again then everything is fine.

Galwayguy35

ScumLord wrote: »

That's not a certainty, all he would know is it heats things up, hair-dryers heat things up and we point them at our heads to dry ourselves off.

You don't know he was trying to torture the cat.

Do parents actually bring their young kids around the house explaining what every appliance does, how it does it, what the correct use of the appliance is and what it's not used for? Or do they just tell them to stay away from them?

Ah come off it, we were all 8 years old at some point and knew it is wrong to hurt an animal, well I did anyway.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Which it is. Well, your view is basically "tell him not to do it again and all's well". Am I wrong?

My view is that he's a kid, he did something he shouldnt have done. You explain to him why he shouldnt have done it, why its wrong and tell him not to ever do it again. You let him learn from his mistakes, which is what it is until he shows it to be something else.

You don't seem to think he should be given to a therapist or anything. You seem to think that if you tell him not to do it again then everything is fine.

I'm not a parent but I dont see myself sending my kid to a therapist every time he does something wrong, as a parent I'd take the burden of responsibility when it comes to his development. Kids will make mistakes and they will learn from those mistakes. A parents responsibility is to teach and guide. Its not a choice of send him to a therapist or one sentence solutions.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

My view is that he's a kid, he did something he shouldnt have done. You explain to him why he shouldnt have done it, why its wrong and tell him not to ever do it again. You let him learn from his mistakes, which is what it is until he shows it to be something else.



I'm not a parent but I dont see myself sending my kid to a therapist every time he does something wrong, as a parent I'd take the burden of responsibility when it comes to his development. Kids will make mistakes and they will learn from those mistakes. A parents responsibility is to teach and guide. Its not a choice of send him to a therapist or one sentence solutions.

Each to their own. I'd be pretty sickened if I had a child that shoved an animal in a microwave and burnt its tail (thankfully it was just its tail) and would get him checked out.

You, on the other hand, would not. So again, different views I suppose

garv123

Really amazed how many people think 8 year olds are stupid and wouldn't understand the wrong doing.
My sister isn't 4 till November and even she knows what would happen if you did something like this. Not even at 4 she knows the microwave is dangerous, so a 8 year old would definitely know what its doing.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Each to their own. I'd be pretty sickened if I had a child that shoved an animal in a microwave and burnt its tail (thankfully it was just its tail) and would get him checked out.

You, on the other hand, would not. So again, different views I suppose

I dont know if sickened is the right word but it seems I wouldnt be as concerned over how is relates to the child's way of thinking as you.

I'd take measures to correct the child as you would. I'd do my utmost to help the kid learn and understand why those things are wrong. But I wouldnt see it as a sign of anything other than the kid is still learning about life.

ScumLord

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ah come off it, we were all 8 years old at some point and knew it is wrong to hurt an animal, well I did anyway.

I never said it wasn't wrong to hurt an animal all I'm saying is nobody here knows that he was actually trying to hurt the animal. Maybe the child is a complete idiot, you don't know.

I wouldn't intentionally try to hurt an animal for no reason but at the same time I know there's actually nothing wrong as such with one animal hurting another animal. We eat animals every day, we kill other animals for no other reason than we don't want them around us. We just give pets an elevated position in our minds because we think they're cute.

If you eat chicken your actively participating in the life long torture of that animal, your paying for it to happen. What makes you so much better?

Galwayguy35

ScumLord wrote: »

I never said it wasn't wrong to hurt an animal all I'm saying is nobody here knows that he was actually trying to hurt the animal. Maybe the child is a complete idiot, you don't know.

I wouldn't intentionally try to hurt an animal for no reason but at the same time I know there's actually nothing wrong as such with one animal hurting another animal. We eat animals every day, we kill other animals for no other reason than we don't want them around us. We just give pets an elevated position in our minds because we think they're cute.

If you eat chicken your actively participating in the life long torture of that animal, your paying for it to happen. What makes you so much better?

In fairness I think there is a difference between eating chicken and throwing a cat in a microwave.
Bit off topic but I saw a programme recently about Smithfield Fair and the cruelty there was unbelievable.
Some people are just born with a bad streak in them.

ScumLord

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Some people are just born with a bad streak in them.

I don't really think so, just about every human behaviour is learned. In a different country killing a cat would be something you do for dinner. If you don't learn to walk as a child, you won't be able to walk.

jay-me

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't really think so, just about every human behaviour is learned. In a different country killing a cat would be something you do for dinner. If you don't learn to walk as a child, you won't be able to walk.

Stomping on ants is one thing.. But trying to kill a cat is on a different level!! Isn't there some study about serial killers hurting and killing small animals as kids?

DEFTLEFTHAND

jay-me wrote: »

Stomping on ants is one thing.. But trying to kill a cat is on a different level!! Isn't there some study about serial killers hurting and killing small animals as kids?

Ted Bundy for one did hone his early murderous tendencies on cats. There is a correlation with other psychopaths with the murder of small animals to humans.

But then you also have people like Kurt Cobain who killed cats in his youth but grew up to regret it and kept pet cats to his death. I'd imagine early mental health problems which went unchecked contributed to this behaviour.

ScumLord

jay-me wrote: »

Stomping on ants is one thing.. But trying to kill a cat is on a different level!! Isn't there some study about serial killers hurting and killing small animals as kids?

It's one sign but it doesn't mean anyone that hurts an animal as a child is going to turn into a serial killer. Like we already discussed in the thread lots of children hurt animals and go on to be perfectly normal adults.

In cities children just don't have access to any animals other than pets. In the country children have access to rats and other vermin and are thought they should be killed on sight. Even cats and dogs are often seen as vermin in the country and many a country child could be witness to a cat or dog being shot or beat with something for trespassing.

CB19Kevo

Without the facts it could be one of two situations.
Either the child is.
a) A special needs child who simply does not know right from wrong.. Or cannot recognize suffering.
b) A child with serious issues.

If the case is A than the parent's should not have a animal in the house and should really have been keeping a closer eye on the child.
If the case is B than it raises major issue.. The fact's are out there about serial killers and there childhood habits.

I certainly can't understand it either way i would just hope that the child did not get any kick from it.

Scioch

CB19Kevo wrote: »

Without the facts it could be one of two situations.
.

Without the facts it could be one of a great many situations.

tedobrien98

I'm 14, and to be honest I only recently found out what microwaves really do. I used to think it was just heating up food, how bad can it be? (I obviously wouldn't have put a cat in it though) There's all sorts of radiation or something that it does and it goes to the inside of the food or something like that. It doesn't just heat it up like. He probably didn't know that, still though I don't know why he would want to put the cat into the microwave, but he almost definitely didn't know that it would fry it's insides and the outside could look just fine...

Galwayguy35

tedobrien98 wrote: »

I'm 14, and to be honest I only recently found out what microwaves really do. I used to think it was just heating up food, how bad can it be? (I obviously wouldn't have put a cat in it though) There's all sorts of radiation or something that it does and it goes to the inside of the food or something like that. It doesn't just heat it up like. He probably didn't know that, still though I don't know why he would want to put the cat into the microwave, but he almost definitely didn't know that it would fry it's insides and the outside could look just fine...

I'd be inclined to disagree that he didn't know what he was doing tbh.

LaVail

sick sh1t to be fair

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'd be inclined to disagree that he didn't know what he was doing tbh.

Not everyone actually knows how a microwave actually works!
It works by passing high levels of electromagnetic energy through a wet body, the energy is transferred into the body by vibrating the molecules creating friction that then creates heat.

My original point is, would an eight year old actually understand that concept and realise that they are in fact cooking the cat from the inside out!

Chances are they just think that they are warming the air around the animal to dry its hair.

ziggy23

An 8 year old should have more sense than that evil little brat:mad:
If my kid done that he'd be goin straight to a pscychiatrist.

pebbles21

ian87 wrote: »

My ex put the cat into the washing machine for a "bath" when she was a kid.. One cycle later a very dead and very soggy moggy emerged..

At least he died in Comfort..

pebbles21

pebbles21 wrote: »

At least he died in Comfort..

She probably used Bounce!

sunflower27

Deleted User wrote: »

She probably used Bounce!

Clever

Poor kitten though