" Animal abuse Leads To Human Abuse "

Do you have any statistics to back this up please, beyond this one case of course?

The FBI have long known the link between violent offenders and the mistreatment of animals....this is well documented and therefore, to answer your question, yes plenty!

But of course,
" A survey of pet-owning families with substantiated child abuse and neglect found that animals were abused in 88 percent of homes where child physical abuse was present (DeViney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983). A study of women seeking shelter at a safe house showed that 71 percent of those having pets affirmed that their partner had threatened, hurt or killed their companion animals, and 32 percent of mothers reported that their children had hurt or killed their pets (Ascione, 1998). Still another study showed that violent offenders incarcerated in a maximumsecurity prison were significantly more likely than nonviolent offenders to have committed childhood acts of cruelty toward pets (Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001)."
Seek, and ye shall find :)
Mist.

October 27, 2005

In Washington Jerry Vlasak allegedly shocked members of the U.S. Senate. By giving grounds for the murder of those conducting medical research. Jerry Vlasak, told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that killing medical researchers was "morally justified" to save laboratory animals. Vlasak compared the life of laboratory animals to African American slaves and the Jewish victims of Nazi concentration camps.


The abuse of animals does lead to Human Abuse because it makes the killing of medical researchers "morally justified". In the absence of the court transcript

This is simply the repost of a mainstream media article with a sensationalist claim. It is likely to remain on the Newswire because it has kneejerk appeal.

This comment, on the other hand, is likely to be hidden - despite both factual content and agreeing with the original post.

Is someone who humanely kills animals in a slaughterhouse an animal abuser? Whether yo think they are or not, I doubt that fits the same definition as the one used to produce the reports you have quoted above.

We aren't talking about someone who has persecuted a pet here - do you have any evidence to support the sensationalist headline used in respect of this particular case or not?

Good point.

Yes someone working in a slaughter house is de-sensitised to murder. Also where do you think the killer got the bolt gun from?

A few months ago an animal technician in america killed an animal researcher. Apparently the history of this technician showed that he had a controlling need which his job as an animal technician amplified as he felt it was only right that he should have the say between life and death.

The NSPCC have a big campaign about spotting animal abusers before they can harm kids.

A friend of mine from Scotland USED to work in a slaughterhouse (now vegetarian). I consider him a very compassionate person and when I found out I asked ask how, as a compassionate person, he could work in such an environment.

His response was that he'd rather work there any do the job as humanely as possible than have some other sadist do it. He said that without exception the remainder of the slaughtermen were cruel and actually laughed when an animal collapsed and writhed on the floor in agony. He said to them it was just a job and they cared nothing for the suffering and distress their "pranks" caused.

I await passer-by's observation that my friends was an isolated experience and the rest of the slaughtermen are compassionate souls.

For the record passer-by I don't believe there is a compassionate way to slaughter an animal. The taking of a life and causing of mental anguish is a sick act.

Yes there is a link between animal and human abuse, but this does not mean there is a causal relationship. It is quite possible for example simply that the type of psychopathic low lives that prey on animals are the same types who prey on humans. In order to establish a causal relationship it would be necessary to conduct a controlled trial longtitudinal study where some people are made to abuse animals, and a control group, matched for all relevant variables such as age, sex and socioeconomic status, are not. Then we would have to follow the progress of each group. Obviously there woudl be ethical issues with such an experiment.

A longtitudinal study of slaughterhouse workers may provide an approximation to such a study, but it should also be remembered that to some extent people choose to work in a slaughterhouse, and this may say something about the type of person they are, so even such as study would not prove a causal relationship.

A more interesting study would be to compare the abusive behaviour of veterinarians with a general population matched for education and socioeconomic status. This is because unlike slaughterhouse workers, most vet students would not be any more psychopathic than the general population, and in fact many may even have a genuine desire to help animals. So if they are any more abusive than comparable non-vets once they graduate, it is likely to be a direct cause of the desensitising effects of their education.

I don't know if such a study has been done. I do know that Andrew Knight compared the attitudes of veterinary associations to animal welfare initiatives and found most had a more callous and mercenary view of animals than the public generally, but these were industry-backed associations, not your family vet who looks after your companions, and who may not even agree with the professional association. A more detailed study would be useful.

@Michael: "Yes there is a link between animal and human abuse, but this does not mean there is a causal relationship."

I don't think anyone is claiming a causal relationship. It's just clear that the sort of psychopaths who work in slaughterhouses are also likely to abuse humans, so it's a good indicator of someone to avoid.

Also, these kind of people often start by abusing animals and progress to humans - not because abusing animals caused them to want to abuse humans, but just because it is easier to legally abuse animals. Then they get desensitised and move to humans for a bigger "hit".

@vegan

The original headline is

"Animal abuse Leads To Human Abuse"

This is a clear claim of a causal relationship.

> The original headline is "Animal abuse Leads To Human Abuse" This is a clear claim of a causal relationship.

I disagree. Animal abuse and human abuse have a common cause - lack of empathy in the person. In general though these people start off abusing animals just because it is easier and more socially acceptable. This "leads" to abusing humans because of progressing to bigger targets.

It's possible there is a slight causal component in that the animal abuse causes desensitization to suffering, but I don't think this is important to the article.

I agree with you that a more in-depth study would be needed to prove a causal relationship, but I'm not sure it is ever really possible. You can never totally eliminate the possibility of an unknown third factor causing both.

Does it really matter that much anyway? It's probably the case that it is partly causal and partly not. Either way, people like slaughtermen, vivisectors and hunters aren't the kind of people you want as babysitters.

@vegan

"Does it really matter that much anyway? It's probably the case that it is partly causal and partly not. Either way, people like slaughtermen, vivisectors and hunters aren't the kind of people you want as babysitters."
vegan

Yes it matters a lot. If a causal claim is made then it can be substantiated. Slaughtermen, vivisectors and hunters all manage to live out their lives without harming children. The statistical evidence of that fact is all around us in the number of people who carry out those jobs and manage to never harm a human child. If it does "not really matter" then the original article is rather a vicious piece of prurient morally righteous self congratulation. So it matters rather a lot.

It might well be morally correct to say animals should not suffer. Moral correctness does not absolve anybody from the need to actually make coherent arguments. It matters a lot if it is causal.

All murderers have a mother is a fact. Motherhood is causal in allowing murder to take place: without a mother, murderers are never born. To suppose that causal link imparts some kind of permission to treat mothers with contempt or punishment is the same kind of logic that allows entire communities to be punished for the crimes of one member. Consider the fact that some dogs bite people. Does that justify punishing random dogs? The answer is likely to be no. So yes, causal relationships are extremely important. Posting random pieces of mainstream news without any critical reflection is exactly the kind of thing that gets people such as Vlasak banned from the UK.

As previous commenters have mentioned, there have been many studies linking abuse of animals with abuse of humans. Whether or not that link is causal is just a straw man you are raising to avoid the point.

People like slaughtermen, vivisectors and hunters ARE more likely to abuse humans, as the studies show. Just because some of them don't is irrelevant and another straw man - the point is that they are statistically more likely to do it. Would you want a slaughterman babysitting your kids?

An your point about punishing communities for the sins of some members is another straw man. We don't think all animal abusers should be punished because some of them abuse humans, we think they should be punished for their abuse of animals! And of course the ones that abuse humans should be punished for that too.

and "Posting random pieces of mainstream news without any critical reflection is exactly the kind of thing that gets people such as Vlasak banned from the UK."

Um, no, Jerry Vlasak was banned from the UK for expressing his belief that killing a vivisector would be morally justified to save the lives of animals. Whether he is right or not is irrelevant - he is just as entitled to express that belief as you are to express a belief that torturing animals is morally justified in the name of science or that killing people in war is justified in the name of politics and cheap oil. Are you saying that some moral views should be banned from being expressed?

@vegan

You really do miss the point. There is no strawman argument in asking for a causal link to be proven. If anything the original posting is a strawman. Asking for proof of a causal link is not a strawman but scientific method. It is, indeed, a method Vlasak relies on in putting forward arguments: he remains a scientist for all his other actitivities.

The question "would you want a slaughterman looking after your child?" is a nonsense question unless you provide some sound, causal reason for me not to want to do so. You cannot adopt a moral position without accepting the consequences. Vlasak conducted animal research. In that "slaughterman" question you narrow the possibilities for redemption and repentance. Is being a spokesperson for Animal Rights the only route out of guilt: this is the quality of question that the original reposting begs without answering.


Jerry Vlasak says that he was quoted out of context and that he supposes it was that quotation that led to his exclusion from the UK. The original article was quoted out of context. It is the same kind of 'human interest' approach that mainstream media uses when supposes all victims are good and therefore anybody unsympathetic to a victim is automatically bad. Vlasak has said that the exclusion is part of a growing police state in the UK. A causal claim that does have a large amount of both anecdotal and measured evidence.

There are recent studies (Suzanne Goodney Lea (2007). Delinquency and Animal Cruelty: Myths and Realities about Social Pathology, hardcover, 168 pages, ISBN 978-1-59332-197-0. ) That show "cruelty" to animals among children is widespread but that children actually "grow out of it". These are studies you can not simplistically dismiss as "strawman" without showing that there is a causal link. Wanting it to be true that cruel children grow up to be cruel adults or wanting it to be true that cruel jobs lead to cruelty elsewhere is sentimentalism of the kind that allows newspapers to print headlines about celebrities as though they were life shattering news.

The truth is that people can be and are cruel. People are cruel to people. People are cruel to animals. One situation is not necessarily causal of the other. Assuming that they are is a failure to put forward an argument that needs to be articulated. Unless that argument is put forward and critically examined, the vilification of those who deal with animals - for whatever reason - is little more than a pogrom mentality. The same kind of hysteria that has a paediatrician hounded out of their home because somebody could not spell paedophile.

Animal Rights Activists take a moral position that needs to be defended. Pointing to mainstream news about "slaughtermen" and assuming that everybody accepts a causal link without any evidence or reasoned argument is exactly what the mainstream media does. It is the worst kind of sentimental manipulation that borders onto autoritarianism.

You have successfully convinced me to cease all support for animal rights activism.

The point you seem to miss (deliberately or otherwise) is there is a higher percentage of animal abusers that also abuse humans. This may or may not be causal. Regardless of whether there is any causal relationship you are more likely to come across a person who abuses humans in a group of animal abusers than in the general populous. Thus you/your baby is arguably statistically safer with someone who is not an animal abuser.

We are probably talking at cross purposes here. I agree the question of whether the relationship between animal and human abuse is causal is an interesting one, but you have to understand from the point of view of animal rights it doesn't really matter:

*We are against animal abuse for its own sake, whether or not it causes human abuse.*

Also, if we can show a non-causal link between animal and human abuse, it shows that animal abuse isn't "normal" in some sense; it is perpetrated by people who are damaged in some way (whether by nature or nurture), so they are less likely to empathise with others, human or not, and more likely to abuse others, human or not. This is an incredibly optimistic fact for us because it means institutionalised animal abuse isn't inevitable and can be overcome.

People like this either need help to stop their abusive behaviour, or if that isn't possible, they need restraining in some way, just as with any anti-social behaviour.

There is nothing "sentimental" or "authoritarian" about this argument, it is perfectly logical. It's true this story is just a single anecdote which means nothing on its own, but it has already been pointed out that there are scientific studies of large groups which have shown the same thing.

"You have successfully convinced me to cease all support for animal rights activism."

If you have to resort to infantile throwing your rattle out of the pram behaviour like this just because you can't understand our point, I rest my case. Who's being the irrational one now?

First, I support wholeheartedly the contention that, "animals can suffer and that to cause suffering is wrong". That is a ethical statement upon which I propose people live their lives.

When I asked for evidence of causal connection and objected that none was provided, it was because I was asking for a specific thing: evidence of a causal connection. Not some form of words that support my position that "animals can suffer" but empirical evidence of a causal relationship between being a slaughterman and general cruelty.

It is not the failure to provide that evidence that has made me cease all support for animal rights activism. It is the supposition that no evidence is necessary because the ethical statement "animals can suffer and that to cause suffering is wrong". Yes, that is a sufficient and necessary statement for adopting a lifestyle that minimises harm.

The arguments put forward are not, however, about minimising harm. The arguments put forward, in making sweeping claims about people, are justifiers of a specific call to action against those who fall into the category of "animal abuser". The withdrawal of support is because the "animal rights activism" attitude has no compromise, no forgiveness and no redemtpion for those who might - accidentally or intentionally - cause harm.

Which leaves "animal rights activism" in the position of judge, jury, executioner and legislator for any matter involving animals. That is an authoritarian position. That is what I withdraw support from. The assumption that "all means sufficient" can be substituted for "all means necessary". There is no longer any reason to talk at cross purposes: you can understand that "support of animal rights means rejection of animal rights activism in its current form" is a legitimate position to take.

> First, I support wholeheartedly the contention that, "animals can suffer and that to cause suffering is wrong".
> That is a ethical statement upon which I propose people live their lives.

OK, we have an area of common ground then.

> When I asked for evidence of causal connection and objected that none was provided, it was
> because I was asking for a specific thing: evidence of a causal connection. Not some form of
> words that support my position that "animals can suffer" but empirical evidence of a causal
> relationship between being a slaughterman and general cruelty.

Causal connection is a total red herring. Correlations are easy to show, causality is virtually impossible with things like this. Can't you see it's irrelevant whether the connection is causal or not? No one ever claimed this. The title of "Animal abuse leads to human abuse" doesn't necessarily mean that. It either means "leads to" in a chronological sense, or in the sense that someone already with the propensity for violence moves from a socially allowed form of violence to animals on to a socially prohibited form of violence to humans. It is the constraints of society that make them progress from animal to human.

> It is not the failure to provide that evidence that has made me cease all support for animal rights activism.

That is a ludicrous thing to do anyway. No one would cease support for something they thought was generally good just on the basis of one dialogue with a random anonymous person on the internet who "failed to provide evidence" for something they never claimed in the first place.

> It is the supposition that no evidence is necessary because the ethical statement "animals can
> suffer and that to cause suffering is wrong". Yes, that is a sufficient and necessary statement
> for adopting a lifestyle that minimises harm.

No, no evidence of causality is necessary because no claim is be made! There maybe is no causal connection.

> The arguments put forward are not, however, about minimising harm. The arguments put forward,
> in making sweeping claims about people, are justifiers of a specific call to action against those
> who fall into the category of "animal abuser". The withdrawal of support is because the "animal rights
> activism" attitude has no compromise, no forgiveness and no redemtpion for those who might -
> accidentally or intentionally - cause harm.

Virtually all animal rights activists were originally meat-eaters. Many have been anglers, hunters, butchers, etc. in the past. We realise most people can change. But a minority are clinical sociopaths who are unable to empathise with others, and this is innate, not caused by upbringing. These people will naturally be drawn to jobs involving animal abuse. We don't say ALL animal abusers are sociopaths beyond redemption. It's just those jobs will have a much higher proportion of these kind of people than other jobs. And that correlation is what the previously mentioned studies are about.

> Which leaves "animal rights activism" in the position of judge, jury, executioner and legislator
> for any matter involving animals. That is an authoritarian position. That is what I withdraw support
> from.

Militant animal rights activism is more generally associated with anti-authoritarianism and anarchism. Authority says it is OK to abuse animals. The act of imposing your will on an animal is authoritarian. Helping to free an animal from that authority is anti-authoritarian.

> The assumption that "all means sufficient" can be substituted for "all means necessary". There is
> no longer any reason to talk at cross purposes: you can understand that "support of animal rights
> means rejection of animal rights activism in its current form" is a legitimate position to take.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "all means necessary/sufficient".

Well if you support the idea of animal rights but disagree with animal rights activism in its current form, then I can accept that. What are your views on how animal abuse can be opposed and stopped?

The fact that he is former vivisector turned surgeon who has gone on to support SHAC and turn on the vivisection industry and has exposed it is the reason he was banned. He scares the fuck out of people for telling the truth not because he made that comment.