Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Serial Killers/Cannibalism
Show More
Loading...
Flag christine3 June 5, 2012 10:16 AM EDT

I've lived more than half my life and haven't seen U.S. media report instances of serial killing and cannibalism as frequently as today.  Until movies such as "Hannibal Lecter" and "Slaughter of the Lambs"came out, this aberrant behavior seemed obscure.  These two movies were probably not the top hits, but close.  There are the very popular nostalgic westerns, where no less gruesome slaughter takes place.  Movies have progressed in graphic violence over the last ten years.  "It's just a movie", we think, as we shake off the shivers and walk out of the theater or turn off the TV.  So much for compartmentalization.  

I suppose there are statistics somewhere that would indicate either no rise in serial killings and cannibalism, or that indeed there is a rise in human beings who 'wander off the path' and enjoy eating and torturing other humans.  Rise or not, this deviant behavior is always with us.  It seems to start with torturing animals, then progresses.  Animals are safe to practice on.  Could there also be a link to eating animal meat, which then horrifically progresses to eating human meat?  

Recently, in one aired serial killer's trial, one surviving member of a family berated Truman Capote for his novel, "In Cold Blood".  It is true that the serial killer, B.K.A., who captured, tortured and killed a dozen victims, read the novel just days before capturing and slaying the surviving victim's entire family.  

Is there cause for alarm that this abnormal behavior is rising?  Within the last week or so, news reported another incident, a naked man eating the face off another man on a Miami causeway.  Police arrived and demanded he stop at gunpoint.  He did not, at which point he had to be shot.  He had been eating another man's face for 18 minutes.

Apparently, these humans are beyond rehabilitation.  Lock down and throw away the key.  They say there is a genetic component, which is nurtured by environment.  Genetics has shown promise, in that people can be screened for such a genetic disposition.  Can they be, will they be?  In the future, what to do with these ticking time bombs?  What are all the underlying reasons for serial killings and cannibalism?  What complex of stimuli can bring out this behavior, apparently inherent in all of us.  Can it be avoided?  

Nobody likes to think about these things, but we must.  Were industrialization and rise in population the deadly combination that would ultimately lead to the destruction of the world as we know it?

portal.tds.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD...
 

Flag Ebon June 5, 2012 3:49 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, christine3 wrote:

Until movies such as "Hannibal Lecter" and "Slaughter of the Lambs"came out, this aberrant behavior seemed obscure.



Are you talking about serial killers or cannibalism? Either way, both are still extremely rare. Neither are unique to the modern age. What is new is that they're more likely to be nticed now.


  It seems to start with torturing animals, then progresses.  Animals are safe to practice on.



Not always and not by itself. What you referring to is a set of behaviours known as the "homicidal triad" or "unholy trinity". The three comprise bed-wetting (beyond the age at which that's common), animal abuse (beyond the age where we develop externalised empathy at about 8-10) and arson. No single one of those in isolation, indicates a potential killer. Animal abuse on it's own would indicate that teh kid has issues and needs help but not that the kid is going to become a killer. Nor do they crop up in every case. They occur more often than coincdence would allow but not always.


Could there also be a link to eating animal meat, which then horrifically progresses to eating human meat? 



No. The human mind doesn't work that way. First off, animal abuse is based in sadism, the need to cause pain in others. There is no linkage between eating meat and sadism. And cannibals aren't gourmands who decide to try out human flesh in case it tastes better. Cannibals by choice (as distinct from desperation cannibalism) are, forgive the vulgarity, crazy. They may or may not satisfy the legal definition of insanity but the legal definition is different to the medical definition and not one has been mentally stable. Jeffrey Dahmer, while legally sane, was not medically of sound mind.

  It is true that the serial killer, B.K.A., who captured, tortured and killed a dozen victims, read the novel just days before capturing and slaying the surviving victim's entire family. 



You mean BTK and so what? The vast majority of people who read crime or true crime books don't become killers. I have shelves full of the things.

Is there cause for alarm that this abnormal behavior is rising?



It's not rising. There have always been serial killers, there have always been cannibals. There may appear to be more now because our media makes more of them and our population density makes it easier to rack up a body count before getting caught. However, our population density also makes it more likely that they will be caught.

  What are all the underlying reasons for serial killings and cannibalism?



How long do you have? There are all kinds of reasons for serial murder. The most common is sexual sadism (note: That's an entirely different thing from consensual S&M). Sexual sadists are aroused by the suffering of others. Then there are the rage killers, subjects unable to control their anger. There are serials who murder for money and one's who murder for revenge (either personal or generalised) and then there's the occasional one who just seems to be obsessed with death (Harold Shipman, for example). We're not going to get through the psychological drives of those on a message board. Cannibals are either driven by desperation or they're nuts.


What complex of stimuli can bring out this behavior, apparently inherent in all of us.  Can it be avoided? 



It's not inherent. Yes, there are probably genetic cues but our genes do not dictate our lives. Our actions are a result of a complex interplay between genes, circumstances and environment.

Were industrialization and rise in population the deadly combination that would ultimately lead to the destruction of the world as we know it?



No. Again, the serial killer has always been there. Our population density has made for a trget-rich environment for him (and it's almost always a him) but has also led to much more sophisticated policing which makes it more likely he will be caught.

Flag mytmouse57 June 5, 2012 4:07 PM EDT

When some people say, "I'm having a friend for dinner..."


They really mean it. 

Flag christine3 June 5, 2012 4:27 PM EDT

I'll comment on your posts but first I wanted to get these stats in.  They are for serial killings only.  I am not finding stats for cannibalism.  There are articles that say stats weren't kept because the occurrence was so rare.


Blog: 






0






The following brief blog post at drhelen.blogspot.com dated Jan 6, 2011 got me to thinking if there was a relationship between the rise of nihilism in the 1960's and the rise of the phenomena of serial killers or not?


The decline of the serial killer From Slate: Statistics on serial murder are hard to come by—the FBI doesn't keep numbers, according to a spokeswoman—but the data we do have suggests serial murders peaked in the 1980s and have been declining ever since. James Alan Fox, a criminology professor at Northeastern University and co-author of Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder, keeps a database of confirmed serial murderers starting in 1900. According to his count, based on newspaper clippings, books, and Web sources, there were only a dozen or so serial killers before 1960 in the United States. Then serial killings took off: There were 19 in the 1960s, 119 in the '70s, and 200 in the '80s. In the '90s, the number of cases dropped to 141. And the 2000s saw only 61 serial murderers. (Definitions of serial murder" vary, but Fox defines it as "a string of four or more homicides committed by one or a few perpetrators that spans a period of days, weeks, months, or even years." To avoid double-counting, he assigns killers to the decade in which they reached the midpoint of their careers.)


_________




Comment:  Killing other humans in wars, or for cultural reasons/beliefs such as ensuring their soul continues, gaining strength/power, or horrifying enemies, are not the same as torturing/killing and eating humans for arousal, which seems to be one currently publicized trend in America, rare as it is.  





Flag mytmouse57 June 5, 2012 4:40 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:27PM, christine3 wrote:


I'll comment on your posts but first I wanted to get these stats in.  They are for serial killings only.  I am not finding stats for cannibalism.  There are articles that say stats weren't kept because the occurrence was so rare.


Blog: 






0






The following brief blog post at drhelen.blogspot.com dated Jan 6, 2011 got me to thinking if there was a relationship between the rise of nihilism in the 1960's and the rise of the phenomena of serial killers or not?


The decline of the serial killer From Slate: Statistics on serial murder are hard to come by—the FBI doesn't keep numbers, according to a spokeswoman—but the data we do have suggests serial murders peaked in the 1980s and have been declining ever since. James Alan Fox, a criminology professor at Northeastern University and co-author of Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder, keeps a database of confirmed serial murderers starting in 1900. According to his count, based on newspaper clippings, books, and Web sources, there were only a dozen or so serial killers before 1960 in the United States. Then serial killings took off: There were 19 in the 1960s, 119 in the '70s, and 200 in the '80s. In the '90s, the number of cases dropped to 141. And the 2000s saw only 61 serial murderers. (Definitions of serial murder" vary, but Fox defines it as "a string of four or more homicides committed by one or a few perpetrators that spans a period of days, weeks, months, or even years." To avoid double-counting, he assigns killers to the decade in which they reached the midpoint of their careers.)


_________




Comment:  Killing other humans in wars, or for cultural reasons/beliefs such as ensuring their soul continues, gaining strength/power, or horrifying enemies, are not the same as torturing/killing and eating humans for arousal, which seems to be one currently publicized trend in America, rare as it is.  








Yes. There might be a corelation. 

Flag Erey June 5, 2012 5:11 PM EDT

I think the media can definately alter your preception of reality.  I don't think there is more serial killing - just we hear about it no matter where it occurs in this 24/7 news cycle.  Before you might only hear of a serial killer if it were say 500 miles or less from your home.  Now you hear about it almost anywhere.  I find myself stumbling across news articles describing serial killing sprees in China and Germany.  30 years ago I would have been blissfully ignorant because the news would not have spread as far.

Flag mytmouse57 June 5, 2012 6:43 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 5:11PM, Erey wrote:


I think the media can definately alter your preception of reality.  I don't think there is more serial killing - just we hear about it no matter where it occurs in this 24/7 news cycle.  Before you might only hear of a serial killer if it were say 500 miles or less from your home.  Now you hear about it almost anywhere.  I find myself stumbling across news articles describing serial killing sprees in China and Germany.  30 years ago I would have been blissfully ignorant because the news would not have spread as far.




I do agree, that media saturation can make things seem more frequent -- when, in fact, they are no more frequent than they were before.


Flag Ebon June 5, 2012 7:06 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:27PM, christine3 wrote:

I'll comment on your posts but first I wanted to get these stats in.  They are for serial killings only.  I am not finding stats for cannibalism.  There are articles that say stats weren't kept because the occurrence was so rare.



True. Cannibalism is such a rare crime, the taboo is so strong, that we don't have much in the way of stats on the subject. What research has been done with cannibalistic killers suggests that, in most cases, the killer is fixated on the idea of taking another person into themselves.


The following brief blog post at drhelen.blogspot.com dated Jan 6, 2011 got me to thinking if there was a relationship between the rise of nihilism in the 1960's and the rise of the phenomena of serial killers or not?



Extremely unlikely. Firstly, there have been serial killers throughout history. Two historic ones that instantly come to mind are Gilles de Rais and Erzebet (Elizabeth) Bathory (although the crimes of both were exagerated, there's little doubt that both were serial killers). Jack the Ripper is probably the most famous serial murderer in history and he operated in the Victorian era. HH Holmes occupied roughly the same period in the States. Nihilism is an especially unlikely culprit for the simple reason that, contrary to popular belief, most serial murderers aren't that bright. Most are pathetic inadequetes who wouldn't know nihilism if it bit them. There is no correlation.


The reason killings seemed to reach a height in the Eighties was because that was the crossover point when the media became aware of them but also when police started to learn how to catch them. There were always serial killers but before, they operated in either small communities or they wandered. The increasing population density caused by urban sprawl allowed the killer to operate in a fairly confined geographic area. The reason killings seem to have been down since then is because law enforcement techniques have come such a long way. People who before would have become serial killers are now getting caught before they get the chance.


Fox strikes me as just another guy who blames social wrongs on his pet peeve, the same way pro-lifers blame everything horrible on abortion. Colin Wilson likes to blame it on pornography. There is no correlation between nihilism and serial killing just like there's no correlation between porn and serial killing. It's human nature to want a direct cause, to want to be able to say "this is what caused it". But I've read a lot about this stuff. I'm about halfway through taking professional qualifications in the subject and the fact is, there is no simple answer. There is no ultimate cause. There is just the human capacity for evil. For as long as there have been humans, there have been killers. Look, people might like to believe that the past was this golden era but the fact is that there have always been serial killers. There have always been cannibals. There have always been rapists and child molesters and murderers. There have always been monsters among us.

Flag wohali June 5, 2012 8:24 PM EDT

Perhaps a very notable example of a serial killer operating when there were no serial killers is Andrei Chikatilo. He may be the record holder for number of kills. This occured when the Soviet union insisted that there were no Soviet serial killers.


They have always been there, we just didn't always know about them.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer


"One of Thomas Edison's first phonograph recordings dealt with the confessions of serial killer H. H. Holmes"


www.buzzle.com/articles/famous-serial-ki...

Flag Ebon June 5, 2012 8:40 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 8:24PM, wohali wrote:

Perhaps a very notable example of a serial killer operating when there were no serial killers is Andrei Chikatilo. He may be the record holder for number of kills. This occured when the Soviet union insisted that there were no Soviet serial killers.


They have always been there, we just didn't always know about them.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo



He's not the most kills. That's either Harold Shipman (killed at least 250 and maybe up to 450) or Pedro Lopez (at least 110, confessed to another 240). Chikatilo is interesting because it's likely he could have been caught a lot earlier but for the Soviet's pig-headed insistence that they had no serial killers.


There have always been monsters among us. But as we learn more about them, we learn how to catch them quicker. I intend to help with that, if I can.

Flag wohali June 5, 2012 8:58 PM EDT

Ebon, indeed you are correct, Chikatilo isn't the record holder, I was posting from memory and I shouldn't do that anymore.

Flag Ebon June 5, 2012 9:07 PM EDT

It's ok, Wo. I wouldn't be able to remember what I had for breakfast if I didn't have the same thing everyday (coffee & cigarettes).

Flag christine3 June 5, 2012 11:15 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 8:40PM, Ebon wrote:


Jun 5, 2012 -- 8:24PM, wohali wrote:

Perhaps a very notable example of a serial killer operating when there were no serial killers is Andrei Chikatilo. He may be the record holder for number of kills. This occured when the Soviet union insisted that there were no Soviet serial killers.


They have always been there, we just didn't always know about them.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo



He's not the most kills. That's either Harold Shipman (killed at least 250 and maybe up to 450) or Pedro Lopez (at least 110, confessed to another 240). Chikatilo is interesting because it's likely he could have been caught a lot earlier but for the Soviet's pig-headed insistence that they had no serial killers.


There have always been monsters among us. But as we learn more about them, we learn how to catch them quicker. I intend to help with that, if I can.





I have just gotten back from a BBQ and have no energy to comment on all these wonderful posts - will do it tomorrow.  Great BBQ.  I always make a homemade dressing to take along.  This time it was Catalina.  Last time it was Green Goddess.  Hey, I hate bottled dressings.    I'm too full and just have to call it a night and sack out in front of the TV.


For now, I just have to ask what you are doing Ebon, what classes you are taking, you are taking a course to work in criminal investigations, what?  

Flag christine3 June 5, 2012 11:19 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 9:07PM, Ebon wrote:


It's ok, Wo. I wouldn't be able to remember what I had for breakfast if I didn't have the same thing everyday (coffee & cigarettes).





That was exactly my breakfast up until 2 years ago.  I quit smoking cold turkey.  Went from 4 cups of coffee down to one.  I'm gonna call it a night.  Can't think worth beans.

Flag Ebon June 5, 2012 11:21 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 11:15PM, christine3 wrote:

For now, I just have to ask what you are doing Ebon, what classes you are taking, you are taking a course to work in criminal investigations, what? 



Degree in Psychology with a specialism in Forensic Psychology. I'm about halfway through now. I'm just about to finish up with sex & gender psychology (exam next week, wish me luck). Then I do the research project in October (no idea what I'll pick for that) and Child Development which bores me to tears but it's required for BPS (British Psychological Society, the professional body in this country) certification.It's pretty complicated because I have to fit in the courses that are required for BPS certification and the courses I want for my specialisation. The degree will be followed by a Masters in Forensic Psychology.


Jun 5, 2012 -- 11:19PM, christine3 wrote:

That was exactly my breakfast up until 2 years ago.  I quit smoking cold turkey.  Went from 4 cups of coffee down to one.  I'm gonna call it a night.  Can't think worth beans.



I smoke about 40-50 cigarettes a day (hand-rolled so probably equivelent to about 20-30 regular) and drink 20-30 cups of coffee a day. I have no intention of quitting smoking because I'm one of the vanishingly small number of smokers who actually enjoy smoking.


Sleep well.

Flag CharikIeia June 6, 2012 7:44 AM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 11:21PM, Ebon wrote:


I'm just about to finish up with sex & gender psychology (exam next week, wish me luck).



Good luck, Ebon! It's been a tough study year over here, as the financial crisis in combination with a neoliberal government has increased student numbers but reduced teaching staff & TA contracts... now in the final exam weeks, we'll see to what degree this may also impact "output", as our administrators call it. I've never been looking forward to a summer vacation period as much as this year...

Flag christine3 June 6, 2012 5:54 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 11:21PM, Ebon wrote:


Degree in Psychology with a specialism in Forensic Psychology. I'm about halfway through now. I'm just about to finish up with sex & gender psychology (exam next week, wish me luck). Then I do the research project in October (no idea what I'll pick for that) and Child Development which bores me to tears but it's required for BPS (British Psychological Society, the professional body in this country) certification.It's pretty complicated because I have to fit in the courses that are required for BPS certification and the courses I want for my specialisation. The degree will be followed by a Masters in Forensic Psychology.




You've chosen a fascinating study.  I was a Psychology major myself.  Over the years my interests have navigated towards wanting to help families who lose loved ones, people who just one day disappear, as if off the face of the earth.  It irks me to no end that people get away with such terrible crimes.


Flag christine3 June 6, 2012 6:11 PM EDT

Christine:  What complex of stimuli can bring out this behavior, apparently inherent in all of us.  Can it be avoided? 


Ebon:  It's not inherent. Yes, there are probably genetic cues but our genes do not dictate our lives. Our actions are a result of a complex interplay between genes, circumstances and environment.


I agree with this.  Where I live probably half of the shows on TV have to do with some of aberrated human behavior.  Serial killer shows or crime shows in general seem to get the most attention from the audience, because that's what we're getting fed.  I personally get tired of seeing it and want it to stop.  People can get depressed after watching those shows over a long time.


I agreed with your other answers too.

Flag Iwantamotto June 7, 2012 7:58 PM EDT

christine3:  Movies have progressed in graphic violence over the last ten years.  "It's just a movie", we think, as we shake off the shivers and walk out of the theater or turn off the TV.  So much for compartmentalization.


It is.  People who mindlessly repeat what they saw onscreen are hopelessly out of touch with reality.


It seems to start with torturing animals, then progresses.  Animals are safe to practice on.  Could there also be a link to eating animal meat, which then horrifically progresses to eating human meat?


Um, no.  Me eating a hamburger does not result in a desire or a will to eat my neighbors.  Now, take some person who flays his cat, spreads the bloody intestines on the patio, and bathes in the pile of organs while broadcasting it on Youtube, and I'm willing to call THAT a red flag.


Is there cause for alarm that this abnormal behavior is rising?


I'm hearing the snorting of bath salts or whatever is causing this crap.  And yet you're talking about eating meat as the trigger.  I find it a strange tangent.


mytmouse57:  When some people say, "I'm having a friend for dinner..."


They really mean it.


LOL.


Erey:  I think the media can definately alter your preception of reality.


Well, personally,  I think Hannibal Lecter would pwn Jack the Ripper any day.  :P


Ebon:  People who before would have become serial killers are now getting caught before they get the chance.


It helps that the internet forces these narcissists to brag about crimes that would've been buried in a letters to the editor page in some newspaper 100 years ago.


Child Development which bores me to tears but it's required for BPS (British Psychological Society, the professional body in this country)


My own impression is that Child Development will help you see that a lot of adult disorders are people who just never grew the hell up.  :P


In all seriousness, you find the same narcissism, the same limited perspectives, the same magical thinking, etc in a child as you would a screwed up adult.

Flag wohali June 7, 2012 8:04 PM EDT

Christine3:


"I agree with this.  Where I live probably half of the shows on TV have to do with some of aberrated human behavior.  Serial killer shows or crime shows in general seem to get the most attention from the audience, because that's what we're getting fed."


Really, not because they are more interesting than some other programs?


Personally I'll take Criminal Minds over Survivor any day.


"I personally get tired of seeing it and want it to stop."


Don't watch.


"People can get depressed after watching those shows over a long time."


People get depressed about lots of things well before they get depressed over a TV program...........

Flag Erey June 7, 2012 8:11 PM EDT

Earlier in this thread there was discussion about violent criminals having a history of torturing small animals and it progressing from there to being one day a monster on the news that killed and tortured lots of people.


 


I can't remember the name of the book, I want to say it was one of Malcom Gladwell's books - I will remember latter.  It is a fallacy this idea that kids who torture animals grow up to be violent or that violent criminals tortured animals.  


They did a study and alot of nice, upstanding citizens admitted to hurting animals in their childhoods.  Violent criminals show no increased history of hurting animals.  A violent criminal might have hurt animals but he is no more likely than the sweet mother of three who runs a scout troop to have that history.

Flag wohali June 7, 2012 8:35 PM EDT

Erey, I think you have misunderstood something. Inflicting torture on animals is one of several indicators of severe psycological dysfunction, in conjunction with fascination with setting fires, extreme voyeurism, bed wetting past a "reasonable" age and other indicators.


One or even a few of these is not any sort of guarantee of violence, but taken as a whole they do present a disturbing profile.


csafd.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sk&a...

Flag Ebon June 8, 2012 3:50 AM EDT

Jun 7, 2012 -- 8:11PM, Erey wrote:

Earlier in this thread there was discussion about violent criminals having a history of torturing small animals and it progressing from there to being one day a monster on the news that killed and tortured lots of people.


 I can't remember the name of the book, I want to say it was one of Malcom Gladwell's books - I will remember latter.  It is a fallacy this idea that kids who torture animals grow up to be violent or that violent criminals tortured animals.  


They did a study and alot of nice, upstanding citizens admitted to hurting animals in their childhoods.  Violent criminals show no increased history of hurting animals.  A violent criminal might have hurt animals but he is no more likely than the sweet mother of three who runs a scout troop to have that history.



I think you've misunderstood. A history of animal abuse (post development of externalised empathy at around 8-10) doesn't necessarily mean that a kid is going to grow into a killer. It does mean that the kid probably has a few problems and therapy might be a good idea but taken by itself, it's no indicator of anything. However, a history of animal abuse in combination with several other factors combine to create a profile that rings alarm bells.


The three factors most commonly seen are animal abuse (after 8-10), bed wetting (beyond the normal age) and arson. Go a little further and you can also add in voyeurism and obsessive tendancies. Those factors show up more commonly in serial murderers than coincidence would allow but are not, in themselves, determinative. They might show up more often because of a statistical anomaly. They might be tied to some other factor. And, with good parenting, they might well amount to nothing at all. The ones who exhibit those three behaviours but get good parenting will probably grow up to be fairly normal people. The fact that most of the people we study have fairly awful childhoods means that they didn't get such parenting.

Flag mainecaptain June 8, 2012 12:57 PM EDT


Jun 7, 2012 -- 8:11PM, Erey wrote:

Earlier in this thread there was discussion about violent criminals having a history of torturing small animals and it progressing from there to being one day a monster on the news that killed and tortured lots of people.


 I can't remember the name of the book, I want to say it was one of Malcom Gladwell's books - I will remember latter.  It is a fallacy this idea that kids who torture animals grow up to be violent or that violent criminals tortured animals.  


They did a study and alot of nice, upstanding citizens admitted to hurting animals in their childhoods.  Violent criminals show no increased history of hurting animals.  A violent criminal might have hurt animals but he is no more likely than the sweet mother of three who runs a scout troop to have that history.


As has been explained, you misunderstood. But why are you apparently defending animal torture? And animal torturers? Keep in mind torturing an animal is a form of violence. It is still wrong. Very wrong

Flag Ed_3 June 8, 2012 7:00 PM EDT

Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:07PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


When some people say, "I'm having a friend for dinner..."


They really mean it.



Or if they have more ethnic tastes, saying: "Let's have Chinese, Mexican, or Italian tonight" takes on a whole new meaning. Wink

Flag Erey June 8, 2012 7:27 PM EDT

Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:57PM, mainecaptain wrote:



Jun 7, 2012 -- 8:11PM, Erey wrote:

Earlier in this thread there was discussion about violent criminals having a history of torturing small animals and it progressing from there to being one day a monster on the news that killed and tortured lots of people.


 I can't remember the name of the book, I want to say it was one of Malcom Gladwell's books - I will remember latter.  It is a fallacy this idea that kids who torture animals grow up to be violent or that violent criminals tortured animals.  


They did a study and alot of nice, upstanding citizens admitted to hurting animals in their childhoods.  Violent criminals show no increased history of hurting animals.  A violent criminal might have hurt animals but he is no more likely than the sweet mother of three who runs a scout troop to have that history.


As has been explained, you misunderstood. But why are you apparently defending animal torture? And animal torturers? Keep in mind torturing an animal is a form of violence. It is still wrong. Very wrong




Wow, what a crazy-ass post!  How in the hell do extrapolate this as my definding animal torture.  you obviously have  personal problems today

Flag christine3 June 9, 2012 3:59 PM EDT

Jun 7, 2012 -- 8:11PM, Erey wrote:


Earlier in this thread there was discussion about violent criminals having a history of torturing small animals and it progressing from there to being one day a monster on the news that killed and tortured lots of people.


 


I can't remember the name of the book, I want to say it was one of Malcom Gladwell's books - I will remember latter.  It is a fallacy this idea that kids who torture animals grow up to be violent or that violent criminals tortured animals.  


They did a study and alot of nice, upstanding citizens admitted to hurting animals in their childhoods.  Violent criminals show no increased history of hurting animals.  A violent criminal might have hurt animals but he is no more likely than the sweet mother of three who runs a scout troop to have that history.




Well, you are probably referring to my post when I mentioned animal tortures being part of serial killers' past.  In the majority of such people, I think it probably is.  About eating their victims, well, probably some do and others don't.  Each serial killer has different reasons for eating or not eating.  At some point some may say to themselves, why waste this meat?


We've had some pretty heated discussions on the animals rights boards, where vegetarians are repulsed by eating meat.  That's a stroke in the other direction, i.e., taking the animal meat to another level and not seeing a difference between eating animal meat and human meat.  Meat is meat.  Processing animals involves torture, no way around it.  We've compartmentalized what we are eating, i.e., it's just food and not a being.


Some authors have entertained us with the idea that eating animals may be like cannibalism.  For instance, in C. S. Lewis' "The Silver Chair, the protagonists (two children and a Marsh-wiggle) stay in a castle of Narnian giants, who serve them venison.  It is revealed that the venison came from a talking stag, which in Narnia is tantamount to cannibalism.  


Both C.S. Lewis and Francis of Assisi were not strict vegetarians, but taught mercy and compassion for animals.


Flag christine3 June 9, 2012 4:56 PM EDT

Lock your doors.  On revisiting this subject (I had forgot about it for a few days), I read this website and am horrified to find out that some serial killer cannibals are released after serving their term.  We were saying that cannibalism is very rare, but after reading this, I find it perhaps as common as arson?  


sadakoreview.com/features/evil-personali...

Flag Ebon June 9, 2012 5:10 PM EDT

The only cannibal that I'm aware of being released in recent years is Sagawa and it's stongly believed that some form of corruption was involved there (Sagawa's father was a wealthy and powerful businessman).Although the question must be asked: Since most cannibals are insane, what do we do with them if they're ever cured?


Cannibalism is very rare. Yes, one can find a list of people who have indulged in it but that list covers much of the last century. There are around 7 billion people on this planet so no matter how small the number who indulge in cannibalism is, you're still going to find a few examples. Arson is far more common.

Flag christine3 June 9, 2012 10:47 PM EDT

Gene Study Finds Cannibal Pattern: Health (New York Times)


www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/us/gene-study...


The first sentence does not impress me. But I do wonder if people who are serial killer cannibals are experiencing an extreme genetic throwback.


Flag Ebon June 9, 2012 11:00 PM EDT

Unlikely. While there are genetically coded behaviours, they tend to be much more directly applicable to evolutionary advantage. If a cannibalism gene was beneficial to us in an evolutionary sense, natural selection would ensure that it became a dominant trait. Now, various cultures (maybe most cultures if you go back far enough) have practiced religious cannibalism and a few cultures still do but that's something culturally quite distinct. In those cultures, that's how one shows proper respect to the dead. There is also desperation cannibalism, where circumstances force humans to eat one another to survive (the survivors of that air crash for example) but genetically coded behaviours are usually those with simple and direct evolutionary advantages.


What is more likely is that, as evolution throws up random mutations every generation (we are all host to around 150 minor mutations), these people have simply been the beneficiaries of random evolutionary luck. A helpful mutation will rapidly become dominant. An unhelpful mutation leads to the entinction of the subject's genetic line but cannibalism is such a rare behaviour that it would likely mitigate against a genetic base.

Flag christine3 June 10, 2012 8:44 AM EDT

I thought to look up Native American cannibalism, to know more about my own ancestors' past.  Then it was interesting to read the history of the area where my tribe once existed, West Virginia.  They were Wicomico, part of the Powhatan Confederacy.  But there exists no more of my tribe, just some records.  My ancestor Robert da Vassey who came down from Northern Europe (probably Ireland), to fight in the Battle of Hastings, was successful, and his offspring settled in England and a few surrounding countries. The surname took different spellings, one of which is my last name.  A few hundred years later, one of his offspring comes to America and settles in Massachusetts in 1640.  Either he or his family goes to the Wicomico Indian tribe.  His sons and grandsons become Great Men (chiefs) four times from records.


www.history.org/foundation/journal/winte...

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook