6 week old puppy kicked to death by a group of little scrotes

If kids are brought up to be animals they will be.

cowboyBuilder

smurgen wrote: »

Well I'm the son of a single mother.my mother worked morning noon and night to keep a roof over our heads.she also became ill and we had to reply on state handouts for a year.I now work in one of Europe's leading banks as a senior accountant.in short go **** yourself and stop generalising over single mothers while you're at it.

Good for you, you´re in a minority tho.

Very Bored

My father is a lovely, kind, gentle man but he would have kicked the holy sh*t out of me if I'd done that. Fortunately, he was never faced with that problem because neither I, nor my brother, are complete scumbags devoid of any moral fibre or principle.

Ave Sodalis

cowboyBuilder wrote:

Good for you, you´re in a minority tho.

No she isn't.

Strazdas

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've no doubt that is part of it. But that still doesn't allow us to say "these kids will turn out to be violent criminal" does it? The graduation hypothesis just doesn't hold.
So, can we just punish these little sh1ts for what they have done please rather then pretending they'll all be serial killers? It doesn't really help.

It's far from a given that they will become violent criminals later in life, but something is clearly not right with them (ditto with bullies). Their violence or cruelty towards animals is a manifestation of some emotional disturbance or turmoil, or perhaps an indicator of some form of personality disorder.

Dan_Solo

Strazdas wrote: »

It's far from a given that they will become violent criminals later in life, but something is clearly not right with them (ditto with bullies). Their violence or cruelty towards animals is a manifestation of some emotional disturbance or turmoil, or perhaps an indicator of some form of personality disorder.

For the millionth time, I have not disputed this. What I've been correcting is the erroneous idea that cruelty to animals is a good predictor of cruelty to people. It simply isn't.

Ave Sodalis

Dan_Solo wrote:

For the millionth time, I have not disputed this. What I've been correcting is the erroneous idea that cruelty to animals is a good predictor of cruelty to people. It simply isn't.

It is though. Not in all cases but it's still something that's strongly looked into when assessing risk and can't be discounted as readily as you have. You also have to factor in situations where the behaviour is deemed acceptable and the person doesn't believe they're doing anything wrong (such as an old farmer drowning kittens), and where the behaviour is deemed wrong and is done regardless (such as in this situation).

Dan_Solo

sup_dude wrote: »

It is though. Not in all cases

This is nonsensical. It either is useful for predicting or it isn't. If you don't know which "cases" to include or discount, what use is the graduation theory for predicting anything?
I quoted a research paper saying it isn't. What have you got? "I think so"?

Ave Sodalis

Dan_Solo wrote:

This is nonsensical. It either is useful for predicting or it isn't. If you don't know which "cases" to include or discount, what use is the graduation theory for predicting anything? I quoted a research paper saying it isn't. What have you got? "I think so"?

You quoted one research paper... that's not gonna cut it itself. I'm on my phone so can't get articles but will get back to you in the morning if you're still interested. There's no such thing as a 100% prediction for how someone will turn out so of course the paper said it's not a sole predictor. It doesn't mean posters are making an ignorant comment when they say the kids have a good chance of turning violent against humans. I think what you're doing is taking two factors and looking at them completely independently to draw your conclusion when in fact they're linked and should be treated as such.

shane7218

Disgusting!

When is this country going to wake up and sort out our ridiculous animal cruelty laws. These people (I don't care what age they are) need to be jailed and the scumbag parents who raised these monsters could do with a kicking themselves!

Sofiztikated

idnkph wrote: »

This boils my blood. Pity the paramilitaries are not still active in that area anymore. This wouldn't of went on 15 years ago or so. There was someone keeping order on the place then.

Well that's just bol*x in many forms. I'm 32, and can remember certain kids boasting about fireworks up cats and dogs arses.

But hey, if romantic notions of paramilitaries "keeping the peace," while at the same time inflicting pain and sorrow on humans is how you get your jollies, keep on keeping on.

bigroad wrote: »

The country seems to be full of these types.
Are we different in some way to other countries.
Is this the fault of violant computer games brainwashing young minds.

And yet more bol*x. No, we are not different in some way to other countries. There are arseholes in every country. You don't hear about it, well, because we don't report much on animal abuse from other countries.

An no, f*cking computer games are not responsible for it. There is no, read none, zero, causation.

F*ck sake. You might as well say that water causes people to be violent. They all might have drank water at some stage.

gctest50

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Stalin was one of the most notorious mass murderers in history, he burnt cats. Many of the vicious tyrants of the African continent care absolutely nothing about animals. I don't much believe the people involved with ISIS are friendly with dogs and cats and have pet parrots and Gerbils.

These facts alone convince me cruelty to animals is linked to cruelty to humans. Not to mention how these gangs would move on from killing young puppies to killing homeless people to killing anyone they don't like. They lack emotional intelligence, unable to show even the most basic abilities of interacting with other humans that does not depend of violence.

,

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

The hypocrisy here is unreal. Children are cruel to an animal-solution: Let's beat them and blame single mothers/justice system for everything.

dodzy

Just read this and made the mistake of looking at the picture of the pup. ****îng scum. Pure and simple. If it had been your dog that had escaped from the house and you came across this, seriously.....I'd risk doing time for them, without hesitation.

Galwayguy35

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

The hypocrisy here is unreal. Children are cruel to an animal-solution: Let's beat them and blame single mothers/justice system for everything.

They deserve a bit of a hiding.

What do you want to do, give them a hug?

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

They deserve a bit of a hiding.

What do you want to do, give them a hug?

Clearly these are the only 2 options available.
You ever think that these kids came from homes where they got "a bit of a hiding"?

cowboyBuilder

sup_dude wrote: »

No she isn't.

Yes he is ...

I see someone has raised the serial killer thing again.

Always makes me laugh, lightening an otherwise thoroughly depressing thread. Though then again the fact that sentient adults believe people who are cruel to animals grow up to be serial killers is depressing too.

I know plenty of kids who were cruel to animals. They grew up to be farmers. Where are the thousands of serial killers we must have roaming our lands?

fizzypish

I stood on a puppy once as a sprog. Feel bad about it to this day. Also, maybe the puppy started it?

Galwayguy35

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

Clearly these are the only 2 options available.
You ever think that these kids came from homes where they got "a bit of a hiding"?

I don't care what homes they came from, anyone who kicks a little pup around like a football deserves the same from someone who can fight back.

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I don't care what homes they came from, anyone who kicks a little pup around like a football deserves the same from someone who can fight back.

So grown men kick a child around?

Foxhound38

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

So grown men kick a child around?

When the scrote in question kicks someones puppy to death for the craic? Yeah, that's a fairly valid response.

Tell me this - if you came across this happening on your commute home, how would you react? Would you sit the scumbags down and tell them they've had it hard and make them a cup of tea while the puppy bleeds to death from its lungs?

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

Foxhound38 wrote: »

When the scrote in question kicks someones puppy to death for the craic? Yeah, that's a fairly valid response.

Tell me this - if you came across this happening on your commute home, how would you react? Would you sit the scumbags down and tell them they've had it hard and make them a cup of tea while the puppy bleeds to death from its lungs?

I'd phone the guards and take the pup myself. That is not the issue here though. People are talking about what they would like to do to the children. In many instances it is nothing short of some perverse revenge.

Very Bored

Maybe the next time these scumbags decide to kick a puppy around it could be a baby rottweiler, alsatian or doberman with the dog's mammy looking on and unrestrained.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

Maybe the next time these scumbags decide to kick a puppy around it could be a baby rottweiler, alsatian or doberman with the dog's mammy looking on and unrestrained.

Their dad's dogs?

Dan_Solo

sup_dude wrote: »

It doesn't mean posters are making an ignorant comment when they say the kids have a good chance of turning violent against humans.

It's the very definition of ignorance.
"X is true."
"Where's your evidence?"
"My wha? But I think it's true, isn't that the same thing?"

sup_dude wrote: »

when in fact they're linked and should be treated as such.

What "fact"? You have provided a sum total of "I think so" to beck up this assertion. So we should just accept it and move on now you're made your pronouncement?

petrolcan

222233 wrote: »

If I bred a child that ended up as disgusting as this I would safely pack it in and leave in shame knowing of the demon I have raised - ugh. I would disown those little...

Disown? Really?

Deleted User wrote: »

Cruelty to animals at an early age is a very strong predictor of violent crime at a later age.

No, it's not.

RyanDrive wrote: »

These youngsters are mentally ill as a result of their upbringing. It's not their fault they do these things.

Hell of an assumption to make.

idnkph wrote: »

This boils my blood. Pity the paramilitaries are not still active in that area anymore. This wouldn't of went on 15 years ago or so. There was someone keeping order on the place then.

jonon9 wrote: »

I hope everyone of them scumbags are found dead!!

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Abortion needs to be legalized so scum like this can't be born into the world.

WTF?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

For the millionth time, I have not disputed this. What I've been correcting is the erroneous idea that cruelty to animals is a good predictor of cruelty to people. It simply isn't.

You'll probably go blue in the face correcting it.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Hitler loved dogs and look what he did.

Well that took longer than expected!

readyletsgo wrote: »

From the same article

'In another incident in the area, a cat was exploded with a firework '

Got that to look forward to over the next few weeks.

Little ****ty scummy ****ers!

The cat was dead!

Ave Sodalis

cowboyBuilder wrote:

Yes he is ...

Based on what? An extremely ignorant, narrow point of view? To quote a popular TV show, you clearly know nothing. You must be basing your entire knowledge on the topic on a few housing estates and the media when the fact is, there are single mothers all over the country. So quit looking to newspapers and begrudgers for your information because it just makes you spout bullsh*t

Ave Sodalis

Dan_Solo wrote:

It's the very definition of ignorance. "X is true." "Where's your evidence?" "My wha? But I think it's true, isn't that the same thing?"

I didn't say that and you know it. Now if you read my posts like you read science papers then that's where we have the problem.

Dan_Solo wrote:

What "fact"? You have provided a sum total of "I think so" to beck up this assertion. So we should just accept it and move on now you're made your pronouncement?

I said "in fact". Not "a fact". Different meaning. Again, you're making me give up hope that you can actually read papers if that's how you read my posts...

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote:

I know plenty of kids who were cruel to animals. They grew up to be farmers. Where are the thousands of serial killers we must have roaming our lands?

Different situations. One tends to be a bit socially acceptable and the other isn't. Different factors which need to be taken into account.

deadybai

Did they have to show pictures of the pup ? He was lovely

OldNotWIse

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Abortion needs to be legalized so scum like this can't be born into the world.

I'm usually pro-life but when I read sh*t like this I am not so sure!

Dan_Solo

sup_dude wrote: »

I didn't say that and you know it. Now if you read my posts like you read science papers then that's where we have the problem.



I said "in fact". Not "a fact". Different meaning. Again, you're making me give up hope that you can actually read papers if that's how you read my posts...

"In fact X is true" does not mean "X is true"? For real?
Yes, you said something was a fact but you, yet again, have nothing to back it up. You can whine all you want about my "only" one reference. It's one more than you've managed.

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

Different situations. One tends to be a bit socially acceptable and the other isn't. Different factors which need to be taken into account.

That's precisely the point. There are loads of different factors to be taken into account. The old "animal cruelty points to serial killing" (part of the MacDonald Triad) has taken a battering in the 50 years since it was first suggested, and statistics have not backed it up...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

petrolcan

Deleted User wrote: »

That's precisely the point. There are loads of different factors to be taken into account. The old "animal cruelty points to serial killing" (part of the MacDonald Triad) has taken a battering in the 50 years since it was first suggested, and statistics have not backed it up...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

Why let that get in the way of a good old metaphorical torch and pitchfork mobbing!

Ave Sodalis

Dan_Solo wrote:

"In fact X is true" does not mean "X is true"? For real? Yes, you said something was a fact but you, yet again, have nothing to back it up. You can whine all you want about my "only" one reference. It's one more than you've managed.

Please read my post. The "fact" I said is that you're taking two points and looking at them independently when they need to be looked as a whole... you keep whining about me not having references when a) what I said above doesn't need a reference and b) as I told you, I was on my phone and could get references. Now I'm not sure you'd be able to read the references if I got them, given how you aren't reading my posts right.

Deleted User wrote:

That's precisely the point. There are loads of different factors to be taken into account. The old "animal cruelty points to serial killing" (part of the MacDonald Triad) has taken a battering in the 50 years since it was first suggested, and statistics have not backed it up...

What I'm saying is that they aren't entirely wrong in saying it. If you look at the research done, as Dan said, not all animal abusers turn violence to humans but many people in prison for a violent crime started on animals. If you said that a farmer drowning kittens is going to attack a person, there's a fairly good chance they won't. If you said someone kicked a puppy to death for entertainment is going to attack a person, there's a far higher chance they're right. Now most people don't understand science and take what they're told as word yes. But I hate the condescending attitude that instead of educating people, the whole "god you think this? You're so stupid and I'm right" comes out instead when, they actually mightn't be as wrong as all that.

Streetwalker

Foxhound38 wrote: »

When the scrote in question kicks someones puppy to death for the craic? Yeah, that's a fairly valid response.

Tell me this - if you came across this happening on your commute home, how would you react? Would you sit the scumbags down and tell them they've had it hard and make them a cup of tea while the puppy bleeds to death from its lungs?

So you condemn violence of one type but support violence of another?

OldNotWIse

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

I'd phone the guards and take the pup myself. That is not the issue here though. People are talking about what they would like to do to the children. In many instances it is nothing short of some perverse revenge.

If it was my dog then perverse revenge would definitely be on the cards, bleeding heart brigade or not.

Eugene Norman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's the very definition of ignorance.
"X is true."
"Where's your evidence?"
"My wha? But I think it's true, isn't that the same thing?"

What "fact"? You have provided a sum total of "I think so" to beck up this assertion. So we should just accept it and move on now you're made your pronouncement?

Apparantly we instead have to accept your assertion that there is no link. Citation needed.

Streetwalker

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If it was my dog then perverse revenge would definitely be on the cards, bleeding heart brigade or not.

Then you are in every way as bad as the idiots kicking the animal around.

Eugene Norman

Here's a link in the literature between childhood animal torture and future violent behaviour. There's for and against.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

Dan_Solo

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Apparantly we instead have to accept your assertion that there is no link. Citation needed.

OMG, this is internet day 1 stuff... if you have a theory (animal cruelty leads to human cruelty) then it's YOUR JOB to find evidence for it. Not my job to disprove it.

Dan_Solo

sup_dude wrote: »

What I'm saying is that they aren't entirely wrong in saying it. If you look at the research done, as Dan said, not all animal abusers turn violence to humans but many people in prison for a violent crime started on animals.

But again, so what? That's like astronauts getting good grades at school. So can we say with any amount of certainty that somebody with good grades will become an astronaut? No, because it is of itself useless for predicting the outcome.
If we can't possibly know the connection until after the fact, what earthly use is it?

NoCrackHaving

If someone could do this to a dog imagine what they could do to a human....**** me, psychopathic tendencies on display here.

Honestly who could get pleasure from something like that.

petrolcan

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

If someone could do this to a dog imagine what they could do to a human....**** me, psychopathic tendencies on display here.

Honestly who could get pleasure from something like that.

You're late to the party!

Dan_Solo

petrolcan wrote: »

You're late to the party!

I'm imagining a movie trailer voiceover:
In a world where evidence, data and previous posts have no meaning...

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

What I'm saying is that they aren't entirely wrong in saying it. If you look at the research done, as Dan said, not all animal abusers turn violence to humans but many people in prison for a violent crime started on animals. If you said that a farmer drowning kittens is going to attack a person, there's a fairly good chance they won't. If you said someone kicked a puppy to death for entertainment is going to attack a person, there's a far higher chance they're right. Now most people don't understand science and take what they're told as word yes. But I hate the condescending attitude that instead of educating people, the whole "god you think this? You're so stupid and I'm right" comes out instead when, they actually mightn't be as wrong as all that.

A theory that is discredited and contradicted by stats isn't really "science"...

Anyway, the point made by Dan_Solo is perfectly valid. It is pretty useless as an indicator of a tendency to violence in later life. Far better to react to what they have actually done rather than raise that old "serial killers, serial killers" chestnut. It doesn't need to be added, the offence doesn't need to be coloured in with thoughts of Ted Bundy.

Eugene Norman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OMG, this is internet day 1 stuff... if you have a theory (animal cruelty leads to human cruelty) then it's YOUR JOB to find evidence for it. Not my job to disprove it.

It really isn't. Although I did.

Your assertion is the extraordinary claim

Basically you are saying that violent psychopaths (to animals) are loving and kind to humans. That's what actually needed proof, which you failed to provide and instead engaged in argument to sneer.

jonon9

petrolcan wrote: »

Disown? Really?



No, it's not.



Hell of an assumption to make.






WTF?



You'll probably go blue in the face correcting it.



Well that took longer than expected!



The cat was dead!

Im sorry did my response about theses scumbags that brutally kick a dog to death shock you.......you shock way to easy.

Its time this country did something about theses *****

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's precisely the point. There are loads of different factors to be taken into account. The old "animal cruelty points to serial killing" (part of the MacDonald Triad) has taken a battering in the 50 years since it was first suggested, and statistics have not backed it up...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

You guys became quite the experts on the macdonald triad immediately after I posted the first link to it.

Here's the latest findings.


In a study of 45 male prison inmates who were deemed violent offenders, McClellan (2003) found that 56% admitted to having committed acts of violence against animals. It was also found that children who abused animals were more often the victims of parental abuse than children who did not abuse animals.[12] As previously stated, animal cruelty was a way for the children to feel as if they were retaliating against those who abused, frustrated, or humiliated them.

Of course some violent offenders might be violent because of the nature of, say, robbing a bank where violence is a consequence of the robbery failing -- most robbers, but not all, don't want to necessarily resort to violence . It would be more interesting to break it down by the kind of crimes that are deliberately violent, where violence is the main crime or the only aspect of the crime ie attacking someone or abducting them to torture them.