| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2008 04:25:22 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'd respond, but I'm weary at your insistence on taking an example as some kind of personal slight. It's simply not worth my time. |
I'll tell you what.......if even one person that's read that didn't see that as a pretty unfair analogy, and wouldn't have interpreted that as a shot, fine, I'll apologize.
Can you honestly tell me that it wasn't?
Will you honestly say that you don't goad me knowing that it's fairly easy to set me off by making these kind of allusions?
Wouldn't it just be decent to have the conversation without that kind of shot?
Would you PLEASE at least answer some of the questions posed.
I'll withdraw my anger, and apologize for my ire and comments, but I'd really like some answers to this social responsibility question for what appears to be a stone killer at age seven.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:26:28 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Enough of the digression. If SC happens by, this thread can be locked at the request of the OP. |
Could we at least address the questions as to this child's merits?
Without the digression?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:48:19 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Enough of the digression. If SC happens by, this thread can be locked at the request of the OP. |
Could we at least address the questions as to this child's merits?
Without the digression? |
How can you address questions as to the child's merits when all you know about him is a news story about one reprehensible act that he perpetrated?
Any discussion along these lines would be horribly speculative. It was an outrageous act, but the people involved in that child's life will be the ones dealing with it.
What really is there to discuss at this point, in regards to this particular child? We know nothing about him outside this one act. Nothing. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:54:10 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
What really is there to discuss at this point, in regards to this particular child? We know nothing about him outside this one act. Nothing. |
That kind of IS my question.
Isn't an act like this far enough off the charts to merit some opinion as to the redemptive qualities of the person?
If this was a 27 year old man, what would you say of his character?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:57:53 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
What really is there to discuss at this point, in regards to this particular child? We know nothing about him outside this one act. Nothing. |
That kind of IS my question.
Isn't an act like this far enough off the charts to merit some opinion as to the redemptive qualities of the person?
If this was a 27 year old man, what would you say of his character? |
This isn't a 27 year old man. A child's mind doesn't work the same way as an adult. Period.
No, an act like this isn't far enough off the charts to merit an opinion of his redemptive qualities. Especially to people, like ourselves, that have very little to absolutely no training in psychology/psychiatry/sociology or any other form of training that would allow intelligent and logical discussion of such things.
If you wish to believe something strongly, that's fine, but unless you can back it up with training, histories, examples, and/or case studies then it's speculative reactionary meandering that adds nothing and goes nowhere. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:04:02 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This isn't a 27 year old man. A child's mind doesn't work the same way as an adult. Period.
No, an act like this isn't far enough off the charts to merit an opinion of his redemptive qualities. Especially to people, like ourselves, that have very little to absolutely no training in psychology/psychiatry/sociology or any other form of training that would allow intelligent and logical discussion of such things.
If you wish to believe something strongly, that's fine, but unless you can back it up with training, histories, examples, and/or case studies then it's speculative reactionary meandering that adds nothing and goes nowhere. |
But I *AM* asking for thoughts and opinions here.
I was very much taken to task because this child's actions frighten me and cause me to want to lock my windows were I to know he lives near me.
I was also taken to task, somewhat, because I don't feel any compassion or responsibility to what seems like a stone killer.
I am curious as to others' impressions.
That seems to be too much to ask, I guess.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:09:16 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This isn't a 27 year old man. A child's mind doesn't work the same way as an adult. Period.
No, an act like this isn't far enough off the charts to merit an opinion of his redemptive qualities. Especially to people, like ourselves, that have very little to absolutely no training in psychology/psychiatry/sociology or any other form of training that would allow intelligent and logical discussion of such things.
If you wish to believe something strongly, that's fine, but unless you can back it up with training, histories, examples, and/or case studies then it's speculative reactionary meandering that adds nothing and goes nowhere. |
But I *AM* asking for thoughts and opinions here.
I was very much taken to task because this child's actions frighten me and cause me to want to lock my windows were I to know he lives near me.
I was also taken to task, somewhat, because I don't feel any compassion or responsibility to what seems like a stone killer.
I am curious as to others' impressions.
That seems to be too much to ask, I guess. |
You're going about it the wrong way then. You didn't just ask for opinions, you repeatedly posted strong reactionary ideas with nothing concrete to back them up, and when asked for clarification on your stance, simply repeated them. Also, you've gotten opinions.
Mine is that there isn't enough detail or knowledge to have this discussion.
Yours is that you're scared and don't want to consider anything beyond that.
Louis' is that he doesn't think fear should stop people from being compassionate.
Many others are also simply reacting to the news, or are admitting (bravely) that they don't have enough knowledge to know where to stand.
You've gotten a ton of impressions. Might want to take a moment to consider them. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:39:29 PM · #33 |
I hate to point this out, and I'm putting on my flame retardant suit as I type, but this behavior is actually not that uncommon, it's the setting that is unique here. Boys that age can often have little or no regard for the life of animals and later grow up to be perfectly law abiding and compassionate adults. We are not the same people as adults that we were as kids. Most kids eventually develop a healthy frontal orbital lobe that gets well wired to create our sense of compassion and morality and we are simply not doomed to become good or evil by isolated incidents at the age of 7.
The salient questions with regard to the kid in this zoo setting are 1) Where were the parents and why did they not have control of their kid? and 2) What security measures should have been in place at a zoo to keep a small child out of such a seriously dangerous situation?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:40:31 PM · #34 |
*No animals or evil kids were harmed in the making of my popcorn. Not to my knowledge anyway.* |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:41:28 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
*No animals or evil kids were harmed in the making of my popcorn. Not to my knowledge anyway.* |
Took you long enough. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:54:11 PM · #36 |
I strangely find myself siding with JMart and Louis in this discussion. If we condemned or labeled people for what they did when they were under 10 years old, you all would not have the pleasure (or agony) of my company here as my rap sheet which began in kindergarten would have had me locked up for life by age 9.
*goes back to picking kernel fragments out of his teeth* |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 07:41:17 PM · #37 |
Sorry to sound like a nitpicky jerk, but it seems there is an inappropriate term being used in this discussion.
I think using the term psychotic is inaccurate here, I think you are referring to psychopathic, or sociopathic behavior. The psychopath is defined by a psychological gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Psychopaths are amoral and give no consideration to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of their actions.
Psychosis refers to a dissociation from reality, generally characterized by hallucinations and delusional beliefs.
Studies have shown that animal cruelty/abuse in younger life does in fact correlate to violent acts against people as adults, and there is plenty of controversy as to whether the psychopathic personality type can even be "treated" or rehabilitated.
Whether people are or can be inherently "evil" is a discussion for philosophers and theologians, but I do believe that some people are dangerous to themselves or others, that this personality trait may be beyond our capacity to alter, and that some people (probably far fewer then many people think, but still some in my opinion) need to be partitioned from society for the public good. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 08:40:19 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by antares1966:
but I do believe that some people are dangerous to themselves or others, that this personality trait may be beyond our capacity to alter, and that some people (probably far fewer then many people think, but still some in my opinion) need to be partitioned from society for the public good. |
Which is exactly the reason I don't go out much. :-)
Originally posted by antares1966:
Studies have shown that animal cruelty/abuse in younger life does in fact correlate to violent acts against people as adults |
A HUGE question is "What is the nature and extent of that correlation?" Is it:
A) All (or a large percentage) of adults who commit violent crimes against other people have a record of violence against animals as children.
B) All (or a large percentage) of children who commit violence against animals end up committing violent crimes against people as adults.
My guess is A, but I am guessing it is not all or even more than 60%. So does that tell us anything about the chances of the Australian demon spawn growing up to be a serial killer? (I'm bad at math, so I'll let someone else calculate probability)
I do agree with the nitpicky jerk  antares1966 about the appropriate terms being discussed. ...not that I know anything about psychosis or sociopathology. For the record, I don't think you're nitpicky or a jerk, antares. :)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 08:48:17 PM · #39 |
edit due to botched typing lol
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 20:49:30. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 08:54:17 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by antares1966:
but I do believe that some people are dangerous to themselves or others, that this personality trait may be beyond our capacity to alter, and that some people (probably far fewer then many people think, but still some in my opinion) need to be partitioned from society for the public good. |
Which is exactly the reason I don't go out much. :-)
Originally posted by antares1966:
Studies have shown that animal cruelty/abuse in younger life does in fact correlate to violent acts against people as adults |
A HUGE question is "What is the nature and extent of that correlation?" Is it:
A) All (or a large percentage) of adults who commit violent crimes against other people have a record of violence against animals as children.
B) All (or a large percentage) of children who commit violence against animals end up committing violent crimes against people as adults.
My guess is A, but I am guessing it is not all or even more than 60%. So does that tell us anything about the chances of the Australian demon spawn growing up to be a serial killer? (I'm bad at math, so I'll let someone else calculate probability)
I do agree with the nitpicky jerk antares1966 about the appropriate terms being discussed. ...not that I know anything about psychosis or sociopathology. For the record, I don't think you're nitpicky or a jerk, antares. :) |
I'm feeling the love, Art, I really am... ;-P
Heck we're only a stone's throw away from each other, could you do me a favor and come tell my wife that I'm neither nitpicky or a jerk?? LOL
Anyway, I think scenario "A" is the way I understand the correlation, and when it refers to "animal abuse", it's not just the "frying ants with a magnifying glass" sort of stuff I think many kids do at one time or another, it's much more serious stuff than that... |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 09:04:09 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Louis:
I'd respond, but I'm weary at your insistence on taking an example as some kind of personal slight. It's simply not worth my time. |
I'll tell you what.......if even one person that's read that didn't see that as a pretty unfair analogy, and wouldn't have interpreted that as a shot, fine, I'll apologize. |
I thought that it was a perfectly fair demonstration that your argument was illogical - if you say that one should assume that a person is evil until the contrary is proven, then it is fair to hold up your argument to ridicule. Louis was not calling you evil - he was exposing your argument as being absurd by very direct example.
My impression is that you have a short temper and are not used to engaging in debates. Louis' comment was quite neat in that, if you had responded logically (rather than emotionally) then you would be forced (1) admit to being evil; or (2) to acknowledge the invalidity of your argument[; or (3) change the subject]. You chose option (4) - emote the argument, misread the example and get offended by a perceived but non-existent slight.
On the topic itself, evil is a difficult word to use in the context that you used it. Acts can be described as "evil" - that has a reasonably comprehensible meaning (very bad lacking due regard for common morality). I don't know that anyone can *be* evil though.
"Evil" is an abstract term. Saying that someone *is* "evil" is a vast over-simplification of any situation. It is a convenient expression when you want to demonise someone or a group of people - but not one that should carry any weight with thinking people.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 09:57:20 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
My impression is that you have a short temper and are not used to engaging in debates. Louis' comment was quite neat in that, if you had responded logically (rather than emotionally) then you would be forced (1) admit to being evil; or (2) to acknowledge the invalidity of your argument[; or (3) change the subject]. You chose option (4) - emote the argument, misread the example and get offended by a perceived but non-existent slight. |
I have come to the conclusion that I shouldn't attempt to engage in these discussions.
I'm no good at it, I don't do clever analogy that can be easily misconstrued, and I really basically don't enjoy picking for the sake of picking.
I lose my cool entirely too easily when it appears to me that things are said that are, at least to me, more along the lines of picking at some particular irrelevant point than the issue at large.
I'm also neither particularly clever, nor do I derive any pleasure in trying to pick someone apart....and yet it seems that others perceive me that way.
I'm thinking I should probably put the rant list on my "Do not get sucked in" list.
My apologies to all.
ETA: In response to this.
if you had responded logically (rather than emotionally) then you would be forced (1) admit to being evil; or (2) to acknowledge the invalidity of your argument[;
I don't think that this is a fact.
I feel that the analogy itself was invalid.
I guess what bothers me the most is that not only was it invalid, but yes, it did seem like a clever shot, and quite unnecessary in what was supposedly a dscussion. It took an ugly turn at that point when the discussion didn't warrant it.
What I was doing was honestly admitting that my fears and perceptions of this kind of person did not give me a good warm fuzzy, and that I felt no responsibility, or interest, in the salvage of a creature bent on slaughter.
In spite of some views to the contrary, I just don't see this as typical developmental/experimental behavior, and haven't really ever heard much to lead me to believe that this is anything but abominable.
How does saying that since nobody offered any proof that I'm not evil fit into that train of thought? It's off on a tangent, and really not remotely useful, is it really?
If that's the case, and that's the way it works, then yes, unequivocally, I shouldn't be in these discussions.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 22:06:09.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:07:10 PM · #43 |
The original topic was "Why?" a child might kill some zoo animals by feeding them to another.
So far, we have "psychosis" and "evil" as reasons.
Let's try to stay on topic rather than engaging in personal attacks about the character/debating skills of our fellow participants. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:11:40 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
On the topic itself, evil is a difficult word to use in the context that you used it. Acts can be described as "evil" - that has a reasonably comprehensible meaning (very bad lacking due regard for common morality). I don't know that anyone can *be* evil though.
"Evil" is an abstract term. Saying that someone *is* "evil" is a vast over-simplification of any situation. It is a convenient expression when you want to demonise someone or a group of people - but not one that should carry any weight with thinking people. |
I don't agree....
Couldn't sociopathic behavior be classified as evil?
What about monsters like Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Stalin.....those guys just misunderstood?
I don't think that's a case of oversimplification.....or if it is, what's wrong with that?
I don't think it's really necessary to have a 700 page case study on someone who rapes and murders twenty five women to lump them into a category as evil, do you?
Does that person have redeeming qualities? Can they be rehabilitated and assimilated back into society? Do you want them living in the house next to you? And your family?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:29:58 PM · #45 |
| This is a bit off the wall, and only a theory, but has anyone considered that this child must live in close proximity to this zoo? And living so close probably has made multiple trips there? And that feeding the crocs might just be on his "to do" list of really cool things? When my daughter was young, we had a snake. We fed it live mice and we let her feed it as well. Never even considered it being evil, just a fact of life (the great circle if you will) of the snake needing to eat to stay alive. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:49:12 PM · #46 |
I am desperately trying to remember why. As when I was about that age, I killed several small animals in a most horrible manner. I did not grow up as a crazy blood thirsty evil monster and I didn't even receive help.
I spoke with a school teacher some years back, and told her of how it bothered me now what I did in my past. Her comment was "You were a kid, kids do stupid things, doing stupid things is part of being a kid.".
What I find of interest, is that a croc, would probably naturally attack and kill those animals without a cage, as it is its nature. Animals die in the wild hourly, and not of old age. The Discovery channel and Animal planet often have programs showing lions, tigers, and bears, oh my, attacking their prey tearing them limb from limb.
Humans are not immune either if you have looked at the average slaughter house.
I cannot explain the lizards he killed, but maybe he simply had seen such a tv program and wanted to see it in real life. A violent beast killing.
I think I remember now what motivated me. During those ages, a lot was happening in my life that was beyond my control. As a kid, my opinion on life didn't really mean squat. Maybe it is why I am so wordy nowadays. Anyway, just about everything was out of my control, surrounded by adults, horrible problems at school, everywhere I turned had problems. But the frogs and rabbits couldn't stop me, they couldn't control me. I could control them. I could make them live, or die, live or die, live or die. Die! I was angry. The odd thing is, I never felt better afterwards, if anything, I felt worse. I had been instilled with a respect for animals, for life. However it was all too much to bear, I had to do something, as fruitless as it was, it was something. Screaming didn't help, beating pillows and tearing toys apart didn't help, talking about it didn't help, beating up kids at school didn't help, nothing helped. It was always the same life, it was around that time that I started wanting to die, and even jumped off a roof, badly spraining my ankle.
So, I'm starting to get offended, at certain peoples opinion of this boy, without knowing a damned thing about him. It's easy to judge someone from across the internet, but it doesn't make the judgment right or educated.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2008 12:09:26 AM · #47 |
| I'll clarify my fly by the pants statement asking if he was a future serial killer. I recall reading some serial profile books and they state that many serial killers tortured animals as children and progressed to bigger and better things(in their opinion) later in life. That being said the article never stated that he tortured animals and that he killed them or fed them to another animals. While I find this a bit disturbing it in no way proves that he is evil or mentally disturbed or a future serial killer. Many young boys, including myself as a boy, kill animals for no reason other than curiosity. I leave it to a lack of empathy for the animals and a strange curiosity at a young age. I never tortured an animal and it was all with a BB gun, more out of sport than anything I guess. It finally clicked with me that what I was doing was senseless and cruel to some other creature that was doing me no harm. What is funny is that I still feel a bit of remorse about what I did as a young boy despite the fact that I just didn't get it at the time. AS for the Zoo kid, we just don't know enough about the kid's behavior other than this situation to determine whether he has a problem. |
|
|
|
10/04/2008 12:19:01 AM · #48 |
| We are all evil it is to what degree and if society deams us worthy or a lost cause. I personally love guns and weapons but hate killing of animals. I could kill another person or animal if I had a choice to make such as it or me. Now here is how you look at it. If you love crocediles then the boy was a croc lover and fed his favorite creature. If you love cows then all the beef eaters are evil. See it is all just a matter of perspective. |
|
|
|
10/04/2008 10:32:57 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by antares1966:
Studies have shown that animal cruelty/abuse in younger life does in fact correlate to violent acts against people as adults, and there is plenty of controversy as to whether the psychopathic personality type can even be "treated" or rehabilitated. |
This piqued my interest and I've tried finding any studies about this. What I've found so far seems to focus on kids who are a little older than the croc kid and they seem to be talking about kids who torture animals like cats and dogs (usually lovable family pets) and isolate those instances from other less cute, personable & pet like animals (I think lizards could easily fall into that non-pet category for some kids).
If there is a specific study or group of studies you're thinking of I'm curious to see such a thing. I grew up amidst a 'gang' of kids in my neighborhood who were quite cruel to animals like frogs and turtles around that age. Now they are all grown up, law abiding, compassionate people. There were limits for some of us however. I remember one day a kid shot a bird with a BB gun and several of us were upset with him for hurting a bird, probably because birds are "cute" and some of us "liked" birds more than frogs, fish & turtles.
Originally posted by L2:
The original topic was "Why?" a child might kill some zoo animals by feeding them to another.
So far, we have "psychosis" and "evil" as reasons. |
I'll add "curiosity" and to that list. I bet the kid was curious to see if he could do it. He was curious to see the croc feed up close. He was curious to break things (like lizards) to see what would happen. In all likeliness, this youngster simply doesn't yet have compassion for animals like lizards and it probably didn't even enter his mind how terrorizing he was being, yet I'll bet he'll grow up to understand & appreciate just how stupid he was when he was 7 years old, he'll probably develop a compassionate relationship with most animals, and he'll probably grow up to be a compassionate adult who sincerely regrets what he did at age 7 (particularly with the bad press he's getting now).
I do believe that children can and should be trained to respond to animals with respect and perhaps this kids parents have not done so enough. But just to add a fun twist let me ask... Do we have a double standard when we allow children around this age (usually a little older) to go on hunting & fishing trips? Do we have a double standard if we say it was pathologically cruel to kill those zoo animals with no remorse and yet most people who would say that probably have no problem reconciling the mass murder of livestock (and often cruelty in their living conditions) that is endured to feed meat eating people on a daily basis? And what about the people that work at slaughter houses? Are they potentially dangerous psychopathic people because they participate in killing animals on a regular basis without showing much remorse?
Like it or not / for better or worse, accepting the poor treatment of *non-cute, non-personable, non-family-pet* animals on some level is part of contemporary human behavior. The only thing unique about this 7 year old's story imho is the zoo setting. If he had gone into the wild and acted as he did with animals that were not expensive & on display for the public it wouldn't have made news (and he might have been eaten by the croc). |
|
|
|
10/04/2008 11:32:38 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by JMart:
I grew up amidst a 'gang' of kids in my neighborhood who were quite cruel to animals like frogs and turtles around that age. Now they are all grown up, law abiding, compassionate people. |
This reminded me of an incident when I was in elementary school. There was a boy who loved reptiles, and kept snakes and turtles in impeccably kept aquariums, with light sources and heated rocks and so on. It made it all the more curious when he shoved a firecracker down the throat of a frog in the creek behind the school and blew it in half. The teachers were completely shocked and really dressed him down, and his parents got involved and so on.
(Thanks to antares1966 for correcting the psychotic/psychopathic mistake.) |
|
