Teen girls shown in Twitter video put...

Teen girls shown in Twitter video putting helpless kitten in the microwave and turning it on

There are 95 comments on the Daily Mail story from Sep 11, 2013, titled Teen girls shown in Twitter video putting helpless kitten in the microwave and turning it on. In it, Daily Mail reports that:

Two teenage girls who uploaded a video of them giggling as they put a kitten in a microwave, which they then turned on, have landed themselves in trouble with the police.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Mail.

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#22 Dec 5, 2013
cheapo wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide your "peer reviewed research".
The contention that animal abuse predicts and/or leads to human abuse is not supported by scientifically validated research. I am saying there is an absence of research. If you have scientifically validated research that shows that abusing animals leads to abusing humans, please provide a link. I have performed tons of searches and have been unable to find scientific evidence to support that contention.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#23 Dec 7, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever catch a mouse in a mouse trap? Ever squash an ant? Every kill any living being? If so, we could say the same thing about you.
If you cannot see the difference, then you miss the point entirely.

http://www.paws.org/human-violence-connection...

"Increasingly, child protection and social service agencies, mental health professionals, and educators recognize that animal abuse is aggressive and antisocial behavior. It is also a reliable predictor of violence against people after a young abuser grows up."

"The FBI sees animal cruelty as a predictor of violence against people and considers past animal abuse when profiling serial killers."

"In assessing youth at risk of becoming violent, the U.S. Department of Justice stresses a history of animal abuse."

"A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that 70 percent of animal abusers had committed at least one other crime. Almost 40 percent had committed violent crimes against people.

The researchers also compared matched groups of abusers and non-abusers over a 20-year period. They found the abusers were five times more likely to commit violent crimes than the non-abusers."

‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’ You already know that animal cruelty and abuse is harmful to society, you just choose to ignore it. Personally, I think you are just a smartass that likes to instigate.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#24 Dec 7, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
The contention that animal abuse predicts and/or leads to human abuse is not supported by scientifically validated research. I am saying there is an absence of research. If you have scientifically validated research that shows that abusing animals leads to abusing humans, please provide a link. I have performed tons of searches and have been unable to find scientific evidence to support that contention.
Please read this book. If you would like a copy, let me know.

Animal Cruelty: Pathway to Violence Against People
By Linda Merz-Perez, Kathleen M. Heide

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#25 Dec 7, 2013
Once again, the research doesn't say what you say it says. Human abuse predicts a past history of animal abuse. Not the other way around. As I said previously, the Mass. study is the most interesting but also the least valid according to the scientific method. If it is as groundbreaking as it appears to me, it makes one wonder why it wasn't published? It also cannot be reviewed which makes it even more suspect. I also doubt that some animal welfare group would be competent enough to develop and implement a good research design. I have actually performed research. The process isn't easy. Most psychologists don't understand how to interpret research which is really sad considering the amount of education they have in that area.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#26 Dec 7, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
Once again, the research doesn't say what you say it says. Human abuse predicts a past history of animal abuse. Not the other way around. As I said previously, the Mass. study is the most interesting but also the least valid according to the scientific method. If it is as groundbreaking as it appears to me, it makes one wonder why it wasn't published? It also cannot be reviewed which makes it even more suspect. I also doubt that some animal welfare group would be competent enough to develop and implement a good research design. I have actually performed research. The process isn't easy. Most psychologists don't understand how to interpret research which is really sad considering the amount of education they have in that area.
Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application
Frank Ascione (Author), Randall Lockwood (Editor)

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#27 Dec 8, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application
Frank Ascione (Author), Randall Lockwood (Editor)
A book is someone's impressions. Telling someone to read a preacher's book about how God is absolutely real is not evidence that God exists. I am looking for scientifically validated research. So far you have not produced any. If you have it, please provide a link!
Virgil Strarkwell

Midland, TX

#28 Dec 8, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
A book is someone's impressions. Telling someone to read a preacher's book about how God is absolutely real is not evidence that God exists. I am looking for scientifically validated research. So far you have not produced any. If you have it, please provide a link!
Agreed that we have to view these "books" with some skepticism. When I first read Moby Dick as a child, I assumed all white whales were demonic... including the one in my shorts.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#29 Dec 9, 2013
Virgil Strarkwell wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed that we have to view these "books" with some skepticism. When I first read Moby Dick as a child, I assumed all white whales were demonic... including the one in my shorts.
Cruelty to animals is a serious topic with serious social implications, please keep your immature 'humor' to yourself.
Virgil Starkwell

Midland, TX

#30 Dec 9, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Cruelty to animals is a serious topic with serious social implications, please keep your immature 'humor' to yourself.
Or else you will spank me, Daddy ?
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#31 Dec 9, 2013
Virgil Starkwell wrote:
<quoted text>Or else you will spank me, Daddy ?
Again with the immaturity? What are you, three years old?
Virgil Strarkwell

Midland, TX

#32 Dec 9, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the immaturity? What are you, three years old?
You mean 3 as in some goober pretending to be a forum moderator?

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#33 Dec 9, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Cruelty to animals is a serious topic with serious social implications, please keep your immature 'humor' to yourself.
You say there are social implications. What are these "serious" social implications. I have yet to hear 1 even minor social implication. Please provide something tangible beyond the fact that you don't like it.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#34 Dec 9, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
You say there are social implications. What are these "serious" social implications. I have yet to hear 1 even minor social implication. Please provide something tangible beyond the fact that you don't like it.
I have provided several links to research supporting the implications. You choose to discredit them because you do not like it.

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#35 Dec 9, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided several links to research supporting the implications. You choose to discredit them because you do not like it.
You have provided evidence that supports the contention that people who do not empathize with humans also do not empathize with animals. What you have not provided is evidence that those who do not empathize with animals also do not empathize with humans. So far, you have not been able to distinguish between these 2 completely different concepts. It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. It has to do with what is supported by research and what is not. I am following the rules of science and logic. You are making inferences that we cannot make if we follow the rules of logic and science. From a factual perspective, you are simply incorrect. It isn't my opinion. It is science and logic. Try taking a class or reading a book on the subject. You may learn something.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#36 Dec 10, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have provided evidence that supports the contention that people who do not empathize with humans also do not empathize with animals. What you have not provided is evidence that those who do not empathize with animals also do not empathize with humans. So far, you have not been able to distinguish between these 2 completely different concepts. It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. It has to do with what is supported by research and what is not. I am following the rules of science and logic. You are making inferences that we cannot make if we follow the rules of logic and science. From a factual perspective, you are simply incorrect. It isn't my opinion. It is science and logic. Try taking a class or reading a book on the subject. You may learn something.
The non empathy with animals occurred before the non empathy with humans. The research started with those who showed non empathy towards humans and worked back finding a non empathy with non-human animals. Perhaps it is you who needs to read a book on the subject or take a class as it seems science is not your strong suit.

What does the DSM say about animal cruelty?

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#37 Dec 10, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
The non empathy with animals occurred before the non empathy with humans. The research started with those who showed non empathy towards humans and worked back finding a non empathy with non-human animals. Perhaps it is you who needs to read a book on the subject or take a class as it seems science is not your strong suit.
What does the DSM say about animal cruelty?
It doesn't matter which one occurred first.

All serial killer at one time were a new born baby. That does not mean that all new born babies will become serial killers yet according to your logic, this would be true.

The DSM IV lists animal cruelty as 1 symptom of conduct disorder. Animal cruelty in an of itself is not anything according to the DSM IV TR. Everybody has a long history of cruelty toward animals...yourself included.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#38 Dec 12, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter which one occurred first.
All serial killer at one time were a new born baby. That does not mean that all new born babies will become serial killers yet according to your logic, this would be true.
The DSM IV lists animal cruelty as 1 symptom of conduct disorder. Animal cruelty in an of itself is not anything according to the DSM IV TR. Everybody has a long history of cruelty toward animals...yourself included.
If animal cruelty is insignificant and not indicative of behavioral disorders, then why is it even mentioned in the DSM at all? According to you, animal cruelty ranks up there with parking violations, yet parking violations are not listed in the DSM as a behavioral disorder indicator. Obviously you do not know the definition of animal cruelty, and that is perhaps wherein your disconnect lies. Stepping on ants is not the animal cruelty the researchers were talking about. Lighting dogs on fire, or putting kittens in microwaves and turning them on is the animal cruelty the researchers were talking about. If you understood the research, you would know that these cruelty acts were manifestations of or indications of among other things, conduct disorder which as you indicated 'predicts a future diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder'.

I would bet my pension that all the researchers who published all the papers I have cited are way more experienced, knowledgeable, and respected in their fields as researchers and clinicians than you are, so their work carries much more validity than your lame attempts at trying to discredit it. Maybe your Wikipedia cut and paste crap fools the simpletons you associate with, but most folks see past your pseudo-intellectual bull and know you are just full of it. If these researchers are wrong, write a paper and publish it for the world to see and scrutinize. Until then, continue to 'impress' yourself on a forum viewed by at least a dozen people.

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#39 Dec 12, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
If animal cruelty is insignificant and not indicative of behavioral disorders, then why is it even mentioned in the DSM at all? According to you, animal cruelty ranks up there with parking violations, yet parking violations are not listed in the DSM as a behavioral disorder indicator.
Animal cruelty is not an indicator of a behavior disorder. It is a symptom for 1 specific disorder. It appears you do not understand diagnostic manuals. Lying is a symptom of anti-social personality disorder and yet, it is not an indicator of anti-social personality disorder. Lack of planning/impulsivity is also an symptom of anti-social personality disorder but not an indicator. Anxiety is a symptom of all anxiety disorder but everybody experiences anxiety. Similarly, animal abuse is a symptom of conduct disorder and yet is not an indicator of conduct disorder. Everything that I have mentioned in this paragraph is something that every single person that is walking on the face of the earth has either willingly performed or experienced. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to diagnostic manuals and until you do, you would do a service to society if you would stop talking about it.

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#40 Dec 12, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you do not know the definition of animal cruelty, and that is perhaps wherein your disconnect lies. Stepping on ants is not the animal cruelty the researchers were talking about. Lighting dogs on fire, or putting kittens in microwaves and turning them on is the animal cruelty the researchers were talking about. If you understood the research, you would know that these cruelty acts were manifestations of or indications of among other things, conduct disorder which as you indicated 'predicts a future diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder'.
Actually, you have a very myopic view of the world. Stepping on ants is in fact animal cruelty. The difference is that you do not empathize with ants. Catching a mouse in a mouse trap is animal cruelty (just as cruel as lighting a dog on fire) but if you don't empathize with mice, it seems to be OK. I personally don't empathize with snakes and I kill them every chance I get. I also kill bees and ants and virtually any other insect. If you learned to empathize better, you would be able to see that how each person views and values each critter in the world is based solely on a learning process and is not innate. That is why dogs are pets in our culture, working critters in another, bloodsport in another and food source in yet another. The same goes for bovine which are used for bloodsport in some cultures, food in some cultures, pets in some cultures and work animals in different cultures. When you can reconcile how different cultures can have different uses for the same critter, you will begin to gain some insight into how others view the world.

“I surived”

Since: Apr 11

A day without women March 2017

#41 Dec 12, 2013
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>

I would bet my pension that all the researchers who published all the papers I have cited are way more experienced, knowledgeable, and respected in their fields as researchers and clinicians than you are, so their work carries much more validity than your lame attempts at trying to discredit it. Maybe your Wikipedia cut and paste crap fools the simpletons you associate with, but most folks see past your pseudo-intellectual bull and know you are just full of it. If these researchers are wrong, write a paper and publish it for the world to see and scrutinize. Until then, continue to 'impress' yourself on a forum viewed by at least a dozen people.
Betting your pension on something would be pretty stupid. I also have not criticized the authors of the research. I am pointing out that YOU are misinterpreting what they have found. In science, you are making a generalization error. In terms of logic, you are affirming the consequent. I haven't 1 single time attempted to discredited the research. It is good research. It simply doesn't say what you claim it says. I also post wiki links because they are easy to understand. I also have no desire to write a book about how to interpret research and/or logical fallacies. These books have already been written. I wish you would pick up a copy or 2 of books on research and/or logic as you are the one making errors, not me. You are simply ignorant on these subject matters. I wish you would educate yourself.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Portland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Todd and Alice Attkisson 11 hr Looking for Infor... 1
Sharon Terry of Scarborough Downs and Her Elan ... Mar 31 Elan Survivors Inc 1
the magick castle (Aug '12) Mar '17 Longggg Memory 2
News Republicans in Maine, Utah want Trump to undo m... Mar '17 Frogface Kate 3
Poll Was Maine CPS decietful when they had your pare... (Mar '12) Mar '17 Iward1980 22
Bullying at Binghamton University (Apr '12) Feb '17 MOSAIC ios evil 17
News Man wins OK to wear goat horns in driver's lice... Feb '17 stalk this 19

Portland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Portland Mortgages