Animal rights wackos run rampant

[Argus]

Caught this idiotic story in the paper today. It seems that in England, they have an educational farming program for young kids at a school. They raise a number of animals as if they were farmers, treating them (gasp) like farm animals are treated. The children recently voted to get rid of one of the lambs, to send it to slaughterhouse and use the money to buy some small pigs. Well, the national outcry was heard in all corners of the land! Kill a poor little lamb!? How could they do that!? What about the poor lamb's rights!? What about the psychological well-being of the children!?

You'd think the lamb was named Khadr or something.

Kids vote to slaughter lamb

Edited September 14, 2009 by Argus

[M.Dancer]

Link like lamb, lost.

[Argus]

Link like lamb, lost.

Nonsense. It works perfectly.....

Okay I fixed it.

[Guest American Woman]

I think the group is too young to be making decisions regarding whether an animal should be killed or not. Six year olds don't even understand death; they don't understand that it's final. "Out with the lamb and in with the cute little pigs" is all they understand. Seems to me this attitude could be projected onto pets, too. All animals. I wouldn't want my young child voting on whether an animal should be killed/slaughtered or not.

[eyeball]

Seems to me this attitude could be projected onto pets, too. All animals.

Given the numbers of abandoned pets

[eyeball]

Seems to me this attitude could be projected onto pets, too. All animals.

Given the numbers of abandoned pets there are in the world this attitude has been around a long time already.

Edited September 14, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

I wouldn't want my young child voting on whether an animal should be killed/slaughtered or not.

Why? Because you believe that ignorance is bliss?. I see this exercise as a great way too educate kids that food does not magically appear on the store shelves. Edited September 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

Why? Because you believe that ignorance is bliss?. I see this exercise as a great way too educate kids that food does not magically appear on the store shelves.

As I already said, because children that young are not able to grasp the concept/reality of death. I don't believe in teaching something that a child is too young to grasp. What exactly would they we learning if they aren't even able to grasp the concept of death? What's the point of voting on something they aren't able to understand? Would you have them vote on the national budget, too? So they don't think health care is magically provided? We don't want them to remain "ignorant" of that, right?

The concept of teaching what's "age appropriate" is true in all other subjects. We don't teach math or science or reading at levels that are above a child's ability to grasp.

Edited September 14, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Given the numbers of abandoned pets there are in the world this attitude has been around a long time already.

"Abandoned animals" and pets are two different things. And if they applied this same attitude towards their pets, they'd have the attitude that if you want a dog you kill your cat. As I said, kids aren't able to grasp the concept of death. They are too young to comprehend what is being presented to them in this class/by their vote.

Edited September 14, 2009 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

As I already said, because children that young are not able to grasp the concept/reality of death.

I don't feel that is true. Kids may not have the same understanding as adults have but they have no problem understanding the permanence of death if someone takes the time to explain it to them.

What exactly would they we learning if they aren't even able to grasp the concept of death?

That is nothing but your opinion - not a fact.

The concept of teaching what's "age appropriate" is true in all other subjects. We don't teach math or science or reading at levels that are above a child's ability to grasp.

There is no subjective decision involved in those examples. If the math is too advanced for a child they will not be able complete the exercises. There is no objective way to measure whether a child 'understands death'.

Frankly, I think children are exposed to so much fantasy death in TV and movies that they we be all better off if they had a chance to deal with the real death of a real animal that they cared for.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't feel that is true. Kids may not have the same understanding as adults have but they have no problem understanding the permanence of death if someone takes the time to explain it to them.

That is nothing but your opinion - not a fact.

No, it's not my opinion; Kids do have a problem understanding the permanence of death, even when someone takes the time to explain it to them. Again, one cannot understand what one does not have the ability to grasp.

Three to Six Years

Child's Perception: Child thinks death is reversible; temporary, like going to sleep or when a parent goes to work; believes that people who die will come back

And some of those children are six years old.

Six to Nine Years

Child's Perception: Child begins to understand the finality of death; some do and some may not.

So this is the age when they begin to understand the finality of death. Even at this age some do not understand it.

Nine to Thirteen Years

Child's Perception: Child's understanding is nearer to adult understanding of death; more aware of finality of death and impact the death has on them

So kids who are even older than the age group we are talking about are "more aware" of the finality of death and their understanding is just now "nearer" to adult understanding of death.

link

Frankly, I think children are exposed to so much fantasy death in TV and movies that they we be all better off if they had a chance to deal with the real death of a real animal that they cared for.

They aren't really "dealing" with it, though. They are just voting to send the lamb off to be slaughtered. It's just being taken away, the same as it would be taken away if they were sending it to a nice farm to live on.

Edited September 14, 2009 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

And some of those children are six years old.

The age range is 6-11 which falls into the: "Child begins to understand the finality of death; some do and some may not." category.

That said, the link you provided focuses on dealing with the death of some close to the child when other factors will come into play such as denial which can easily be confused with 'not understanding' if one assumes that the child cannot understand.

But all of that is immaterial when you consider that kids see death on a daily basis in tv and movies which makes me wonder what exactly you think you are sheltering them from.

[Guest American Woman]

The age range is 6-11 which falls into the: "Child begins to understand the finality of death; some do and some may not." category.

Right. They "begin" to learn it. That doesn't mean they understand it. Furthermore, some "may not," and since there are six year olds in this group, there are some at the very edge of the group just "beginning" to understand it. Even the older group is just "more aware" of the finality, and "closer" to an adult's understanding.

That said, the link you provided focuses on dealing with the death of some close to the child when other factors will come into play such as denial which can easily be confused with 'not understanding' if one assumes that the child cannot understand.

The link explains children's concept, their grasp, on death. The link I used may focus on the death of someone close, but the understanding of death is the same no matter what.

But all of that is immaterial when you consider that kids see death on a daily basis in tv and movies which makes me wonder what exactly you think you are sheltering them from.

Some parents choose not to let their six year olds, or even older, watch death on tv and in movies, much less on a daily basis. But by the same token, kids may watch war on tv, too, but I wouldn't want them voting on whether or not the nation goes to war. So again, what I disagree with is the kids having a choice in the animal's slaughter; the kids voting on something they don't understand.

Edited September 14, 2009 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

They might be grasping the concept of mint jelly with their chops a bit better...everything else, including understanding the finality of death, is gravy.

They are learning nothing new that a farm raised child learns at the same age.

[Melanie_]

The age range is 6-11 which falls into the: "Child begins to understand the finality of death; some do and some may not." category.

That said, the link you provided focuses on dealing with the death of some close to the child when other factors will come into play such as denial which can easily be confused with 'not understanding' if one assumes that the child cannot understand.

But all of that is immaterial when you consider that kids see death on a daily basis in tv and movies which makes me wonder what exactly you think you are sheltering them from.

Often the "death" young children see in movies (particularly Disney movies) is reversible - Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and the Beast (in Beauty and the Beast) are lifeless, but are awoken with a kiss; Simba in the Lion King dies, but comes back as a disembodied voice, a vision, and a cloud; Baloo the Bear (in the Jungle Book) is pronounced dead, but then comes back to life; Hurcules goes into the Underworld to bring back his dead girlfriend, Meg. We know that young children don't understand the finality of death - the movies don't cause that, as it is a developmental stage, but they do hinder children's development of a true understanding of death. Children who have real life experience with death (whether that be grandma, or their dog, or even their goldfish) develop their understanding of permanence more quickly.

I'm not really opposed to this experiment, as it sounds like the children were well prepared and had the supports they would need to accept responsibility for their decision. Some may feel a lot of guilt later, as their understanding of death matures, so the supports need to continue to be in place. But, if they eat meat, its better that they know that it comes from animals rather than from Safeway.

[Oleg Bach]

To artifically enduce trama in children is very manipulative...Just as someone said about our troops in the early stages of the Afghanistan affair - "We must "bloody" our troops in order to condition them" The term "bloody" is what hunters do for the young members of the party after killing their first deer. The smear blood from the animal on the young hunters face. This is as barbaric as Christian blood ritual or Myan blood drinking...Those that want to expose kids to death and blood...have perverse ulteriour motives _ I remember as a child the killing of a pig. It was later eaten - but it was done swiftly - the farmer entered the stall and lifted it's right leg exposing the chest and stuck a sharp object through the heart...I was about 3 and I remember the hole....I did not need to see that - some are professional butchers and some are not.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It's just a lamb I know kids around this age who have killed animals themselves while hunting with their dad, helped skin it to. All food involves death that's just how it is to few people understand that, these kids will that's a good thing.

[Alta4ever]

As I already said, because children that young are not able to grasp the concept/reality of death. I don't believe in teaching something that a child is too young to grasp. What exactly would they we learning if they aren't even able to grasp the concept of death? What's the point of voting on something they aren't able to understand? Would you have them vote on the national budget, too? So they don't think health care is magically provided? We don't want them to remain "ignorant" of that, right?

The concept of teaching what's "age appropriate" is true in all other subjects. We don't teach math or science or reading at levels that are above a child's ability to grasp.

Obviously you were never asked to help dad slaughter chickens behind the barn to pluck and cook for dinner. Childern should know were food comes from. It never hurt me, my parents or grand parents or great grand parents so on and so forth. Society should be very aware of where our food supply comes from and how the industry works, to have children grow up ignorant of farming practices breeds entitelement. They beleive that fgood should just magically be availible to them in the grocery store

[Tawasakm]

I'm astonished at people who seem to feel this is 'age inappropriate' or that it will 'traumatise' children. Its called reality people and reality hurts the most when you are completely out of touch with it and are forced to confront it. Much better to be in touch with it to start with. Kids growing up on farms aren't traumatised by the cycle of life and death amongst the animal population. If anything they are completely pragmatic about it - and far less likely to be upset over the realities of where our food comes from than city kids are who are 'protected' from it. Bottom line, in my opinion, is not only are kids able to cope with these practical realites but they are far better off as a result of exposure to it. If you are only ever prepared to feed kids alternate reality (all these cutesy cartoons that represents animals in a certain way for example) and not the reality of the world you are only setting them up to have a much harder time down the track adjusting to how things really are.

[Bonam]

Kids of younger ages than 6 have been helping their parents on the farms for thousands of years. Probably not just deciding to slaughter animals but carrying out the deed themselves. There is nothing special about a farm animal. It is just food. Slaughtering a farm animal is no different than harvesting a vegetable from your garden. Both have been grown with only one purpose, to be food for humans.

As for understanding the finality of human death, people understand it only when they need to understand it, when they encounter it in life. Some adults are utterly unequipped to deal with it, while some children grow accustomed to it by as early as 3 or 4 if they grow up in sufficiently war torn areas.

[Guest American Woman]

It's just a lamb I know kids around this age who have killed animals themselves while hunting with their dad, helped skin it to. All food involves death that's just how it is to few people understand that, these kids will that's a good thing.

All food doesn't involve death, which is why some chose to become vegetarians.

But even if you really do know six year olds who have killed animals themselves while hunting with their dads, that doesn't make it "right." I'm wondering just where a six year old (make that 6-11 year olds) can legally hunt, though.

-----------------------------------------

Obviously you were never asked to help dad slaughter chickens behind the barn to pluck and cook for dinner. Childern should know were food comes from.

No, I never was asked to help anyone slaughter chickens behind the barn to pluck and cook for dinner, much less helped make the decision as to whether or not they should be slaughtered. Yet I still know how chicken ends up on the supermarket shelf.

Society should be very aware of where our food supply comes from and how the industry works, to have children grow up ignorant of farming practices breeds entitelement. They beleive that fgood should just magically be availible to them in the grocery store.

Believing that "food should just magically be available to them in the grocery store," if kids do indeed believe that, hardly breeds "entitlement." They have to pay for the food, after all. It's not as if they are getting it free, so I'm stumped as to where the "entitlement" part comes in.

I understand where food comes from even though I never bottle fed an animal as a little girl and then was asked to "vote" on whether or not the animal should be slaughtered in order to make room for more baby animals. So society can be aware of where food comes from without being directly involved in the process-- especially when they are too young to grasp the concept.

----------------------------------------

I'm astonished at people who seem to feel this is 'age inappropriate' or that it will 'traumatise' children. Its called reality people and reality hurts the most when you are completely out of touch with it and are forced to confront it.

And I'm astonished that people would condone involving a child in a process they don't completely grasp/understand. Furthermore, it's not called "reality" if one can't grasp the concept.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is not only are kids able to cope with these practical realites but they are far better off as a result of exposure to it. If you are only ever prepared to feed kids alternate reality (all these cutesy cartoons that represents animals in a certain way for example) and not the reality of the world you are only setting them up to have a much harder time down the track adjusting to how things really are.

One isn't "prepared" for everything in life at the same age. There's a reason for that. So when the time comes, when a child is old enough to decide whether they want to eat meat or be a vegetarian, then involving children in a decision like this is at least age appropriate.

Until a child is old enough to grasp/comprehend what is being "taught," they aren't learning what is being taught.

---------------------------------------

As for understanding the finality of human death, people understand it only when they need to understand it, when they encounter it in life. Some adults are utterly unequipped to deal with it, while some children grow accustomed to it by as early as 3 or 4 if they grow up in sufficiently war torn areas.

Adults "understand" the finality of death even before they encounter it. "Dealing with it" and "understanding it" are two very different things. That goes for "growing accustomed" to it, too; one can grow accustomed to loss and still not understand it.

[Bonam]

All food doesn't involve death, which is why some chose to become vegetarians.

Fruits and vegetables are living things too. The only food that doesn't involve death is that which is produced entirely by artificial means from materials that were never part of living organisms, or that which is extracted from living things in a non-lethal process (i.e. milk).

Adults "understand" the finality of death even before they encounter it. "Dealing with it" and "understanding it" are two very different things. That goes for "growing accustomed" to it, too; one can grow accustomed to loss and still not understand it.

People understand what they understand because of the life experiences they have had. Understanding of death does not magically happen at a certain age. Understanding comes as a result of learning and thought and experience. Depending on one's environment, one comes to understand certain things at different times.

[Guest American Woman]

Fruits and vegetables are living things too. The only food that doesn't involve death is that which is produced entirely by artificial means from materials that were never part of living organisms, or that which is extracted from living things in a non-lethal process (i.e. milk).

If you want to talk about whether or not an apple "dies" because we pick it, that's a whole different concept, so I'm not going off on another topic entirely in this thread. I'm referring to "death" in the context that most people refer to it when talking about death.

People understand what they understand because of the life experiences they have had. Understanding of death does not magically happen at a certain age. Understanding comes as a result of learning and thought and experience. Depending on one's environment, one comes to understand certain things at different times.

I didn't say that understanding death did happen magically at a certain age. In fact, I've said quite the opposite. What I did say is one cannot grasp something that they are not developmentally able to grasp and children, at certain ages of their life, are unable to grasp the concept of the finality of death. So sure the understanding comes at different ages for different children, but it won't come before their development is sufficient to grasp/understand it. It's why we teach different things to kindergartners than we do sixth graders.

[Riverwind]

It's why we teach different things to kindergartners than we do sixth graders.

The difference is you seek to prevent children who may be perfectly capable of understanding the concept from participating in the exercise because some children may not understand it.

I think you are also missing the cause and effect. If there is evidence that children are not able to grasp the concept is it because of their brains or it is because they have never been exposed to it? I suspect the sanitized nature of our society is the more likely cause of any lack of undertstanding and that participating in such an exercise would help bring about understanding when there was none before.

[Guest American Woman]

The difference is you seek to prevent children who may be perfectly capable of understanding the concept from participating in the exercise because some children may not understand it.

If you're going to teach something to a group, it has to be 'age appropriate' for all members of the group. That goes for everything that is governed by age. Some may be mature enough to vote at 16, but we deprive them since most aren't considered mature enough. Some may have been driving farm equipment since age 12 and could easily drive a car at 14, but we deprive them since 16 is the age that applies to most. Same for setting the age for kindergarten. And for joining the military. Etc.

I think you are also missing the cause and effect. If there is evidence that children are not able to grasp the concept is it because of their brains or it is because they have never been exposed to it? I suspect the sanitized nature of our society is the more likely cause of any lack of undertstanding and that participating in such an exercise would help bring about understanding when there was none before.

The reason they aren't able to grasp the concept of the finality of death is because of their brain development, not because haven't had it explained or haven't been exposed to it.