Animal rights wackos run rampant

[Bonam]

Do I need to repeat again that it's difficult to find this information on the web without paying for the articles from journals? I'm not willing to pay for information to pass on to you. As I said, sometimes seeking knowledge on a topic goes beyond the web; it involves classes, reading books, and reading articles in journals.

You can find online at least the abstract of just about any scientific study ever published in a peer reviewed journal in English, for free.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

You can find online at least the abstract of just about any scientific study ever published in a peer reviewed journal in English, for free.

So why don't you take a stab at finding it then? And if you do find it, post it. Everything I found required a fee, but if you can find it for free, great. But if you can't, your claim is meaningless.

[Bonam]

So why don't you take a stab at finding it then? And if you do find it, post it. Everything I found required a fee, but if you can find it for free, great. But if you can't, your claim is meaningless.

Because I don't know what I would be looking for, but you, apparently, do, if you've seen such studies before throughout the course of your extensive education (as you claim) on this subject.

[Guest American Woman]

Because I don't know what I would be looking for, but you, apparently, do, if you've seen such studies before throughout the course of your extensive education (as you claim) on this subject.

And I have looked, and found only articles that require a charge. Did my repeating that several times escape your notice?

As for your insinuation that my claim to have studied in this area is dubious, it tells me just where you are coming from in this discussion (you certainly haven't questioned anyone else's personal experiences in this thread), and just how pointless it is to try to have an honest discussion with you. I will no longer be wasting my time in that regard.

[Bonam]

And I have looked, and found only articles that require a charge. Did my repeating that several times escape your notice?

As for your insinuation that my claim to have studied in this area is dubious, it tells me just where you are coming from in this discussion (you certainly haven't questioned anyone else's personal experiences in this thread), and just how pointless it is to try to have an honest discussion with you. I will no longer be wasting my time in that regard.

I made no such insinuation. Rather, I pointed out that as one educated in the field you would be better qualified to find articles relating to it. If you've found articles that require a charge to view, do they not have a title, a list of authors, and an abstract available to see before purchasing the article itself? That is certainly how all articles for purchase are presented that I've ever looked up.

As for personal experiences, I have no particular need to question them. From my point of view, you are the one making the more extreme positive statement, that children are insufficiently developed to understand the finality of death before a certain age. Hence, it is your statement that I see as needing backup, not the converse statement. My personal experiences, which I won't go into here and now, tend to disagree with your position.

Furthermore, your quotes from hospice, even if they are substantiated by appropriate studies, refer to the death of people (friends, family members, etc) rather than farm animals. It is entirely possible that children, especially those exposed to the issue, would come to understand the death of farm animals more quickly and easily than that of their loved ones. Furthermore, I would say that it depends very much on the child's environment, I would suggest that a study performed on children that have lived in peace and tranquility in, for example, Canada, would have much different results than one conducted on children growing up in a war torn region surrounded by death and fighting. Hence, while age may be one factor, others would certainly also have influence, perhaps to a much greater degree.

[Riverwind]

But experience doesn't make up for inability to understand, either.

There is only one fact that can be observed: that the child does not appear to grasp the concept. The question is how can one know if this is due to lack of experience/teaching or some biological limitation? I don't think it is possible to determine conclusively.

It's why we don't teach the concept of e-mc squared to kindergartners, because they wouldn't be able to fully grasp what it means under any circumstances.

The difference is with abstract concepts like math there is a concrete way to measure understanding (i.e. problem solving). This allows one to develop tests where one could, in theory, demonstrate statistically that the lack of understanding is most likely due to some biological limitation. I cannot think of any concrete way to measure a child's understanding of death because any real test would not involve real deaths.

No, his response doesn't illustrate how experts tend to trust other experts, it illustrates his trusting of what other experts say.

That is the entire my point. Experts trust experts which means if an expert has no first hand knowledge in a particular subject then the expert is only offering opinions - not facts. In this case, the statistics overlaps with my area of expertise which means I know the "hockey stick" papers are junk. However, this particular expert choose to rely on his personal prejudices instead of investigating the issue for himself. By taking that position he demonstrated that a 'concensus' of experts does not mean much.

I'm quite able to grasp the idea that science isn't some infallible process. I find it interesting, however, that you feel qualified to claim that it doesn't produce reliable results most of the time.

I said it does not produce reliable results *when there are no independently verifiable facts*. For example, the scientific process was able to easily demonstrate that cold fusion was bunk because the results could not be replicated. However, in fields like psychology the test results are often inconclusive and subject to interpretation. This makes it impossible to prove that an hypothesis is wrong. This lack of faslifiability makes the results inherently unreliable.

In spite of your believe, many conclusions were drawn from the studies that were made to gather information, not from studies that were conducted to prove some preconceived 'conclusion.'

Basic scientific theory requires that one develop a hypothesis and then find a why to test the hypothesis. If one believes that a child's understanding of death is limited by their cognative development then one must come up with a way to test it before that hypothesis can be accepted as fact. All I am asking is how did they do it?

I feel justified in saying that I believe whatever can't be "proven" by "2=2=4" type logic will simply be dismissed by you if it's in regards to something you've already decided you don't agree with.

2+2 only equals 4 if you are using a number system greater than base 4. If you are using base 3 then 2+2=11.

What I am saying is all scientific claims are subject to assumption (even something as trivial as 2+2=4). If you do not understand the assumptions that a claim is built on then you cannot evaluate whether that claim is likely to be true or false.

If you claim something is true without understanding the assumptions and caveats then you are offering an opinion - nothing more.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[Bonam]

2+2 only equals 4 if you are using a number system greater than base 4. If you are using base 3 then 2+2=11.

What I am saying is all scientific claims are subject to assumption (even something as trivial as 2+2=4).

This is false. The number four is still the same number regardless of what base system you represent it in. You can write it in any base you want, or in Roman or Mayan or Hebrew numerals, but the meaning of the equation will remain unaltered.

That being said, I agree with your point, it was just a very bad example.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

I made no such insinuation.

Then I misread you, and I apologize.

Rather, I pointed out that as one educated in the field you would be better qualified to find articles relating to it. If you've found articles that require a charge to view, do they not have a title, a list of authors, and an abstract available to see before purchasing the article itself? That is certainly how all articles for purchase are presented that I've ever looked up.

What good does an "abstract" do? It's results people are asking for, not "abstracts."

Furthermore, your quotes from hospice, even if they are substantiated by appropriate studies, refer to the death of people (friends, family members, etc) rather than farm animals.

No, they don't; they refer to a child's ability/inability to grasp the concept of death. And I've said again and again that sites providing information for helping children grieve over the death of a pet gives the same information.

It is entirely possible that children, especially those exposed to the issue, would come to understand the death of farm animals more quickly and easily than that of their loved ones.

People keep making this claim, but what's "possible" doesn't overshadow "what's known." In light of all the claims to the contrary of what I've posted, and suggestions that the studies were all geared towards a preconceived "conclusion," I find it interesting that no one can find anything to refute what I've said.

Furthermore, I would say that it depends very much on the child's environment, I would suggest that a study performed on children that have lived in peace and tranquility in, for example, Canada, would have much different results than one conducted on children growing up in a war torn region surrounded by death and fighting. Hence, while age may be one factor, others would certainly also have influence, perhaps to a much greater degree.

I think you're confusing "acceptance" with "understanding." There's no information to show that a child in a war-torn country "understands" or "comprehends" the loss of his/her parents any more than a child in Canada would. I'm not even sure they "accept" it as readily as you seem to think they do. It's very possible that they hold out hope that mommy or daddy might still show up again some day.

But yes, as I stated above, experience, along with cognitive ability, does enter into a child's understanding of death -- just as it does everything else they learn/are taught. And Hospice recognizes this. Experience has been part of the studies conducted/the conclusions drawn. But as with everything else, a full understanding, which varies from child to child, doesn't come about until the child is at the age where it is cognitively possible for them to fully understand.

[Guest American Woman]

The difference is with abstract concepts like math there is a concrete way to measure understanding (i.e. problem solving). This allows one to develop tests where one could, in theory, demonstrate statistically that the lack of understanding is most likely due to some biological limitation. I cannot think of any concrete way to measure a child's understanding of death because any real test would not involve real deaths.

And this confirms my point. You only believe in "concrete" evidence and will dismiss any evidence that is not "concrete" if you don't agree with the premise -- no matter how involved, how detailed, how extensive the research/studies.

So you believe what you choose to believe, but that's not a legitimate basis for school's to teach was has been accepted by those knowledgeable in a specific field as not 'age appropriate;' ie: not a concept that a child can grasp at such and such an age. And the schools whole cirriculum is based on what's perceived as "age appropriate."

So whether or not you agree with the studies is irrelevant. The parents had every right to object.

in fields like psychology the test results are often inconclusive and subject to interpretation. This makes it impossible to prove that an hypothesis is wrong. This lack of faslifiability makes the results inherently unreliable.

Again, you declare the results of studies/research/years of experience as "unreliable." Yet their conclusions are much more reliable than yours are since yours are not based on the same extensive criteria theirs are.

Basic scientific theory requires that one develop a hypothesis and then find a why to test the hypothesis. If one believes that a child's understanding of death is limited by their cognative development then one must come up with a way to test it before that hypothesis can be accepted as fact. All I am asking is how did they do it?

As I said earlier, some studies are not done with a specific hypothesis, but rather an open-ended question. "How do children deal with death?" would be such a question. The research is then centered around trying to find the answers. You'll have to find your own answer to "how they did it," but until you do, you cannot dismiss it as "unreliable." You can legiitmately question it, but you cannot dismiss it, nor can you expect others to accept the information being dismissed without anything to refute it on your part.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, there's nothing out there to refute what the studies in how children perceive/grasp death have concluded.

2+2 only equals 4 if you are using a number system greater than base 4. If you are using base 3 then 2+2=11.

I thought it would be obvious, for the sake of this discussion, that I was using our standard number system. And I think you actually, in all honestly, knew that.

If you claim something is true without understanding the assumptions and caveats then you are offering an opinion

Who's claiming something is true without understanding the assumptions? Try as you might to make this nothing more than opinion, it doesn't change the fact that it's not. Edited September 19, 2009 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

This is false. The number four is still the same number regardless of what base system you represent it in. You can write it in any base you want, or in Roman or Mayan or Hebrew numerals, but the meaning of the equation will remain unaltered.

I did consider that but I think the example is still valid if you are talking about the symbols instead of the abstract numbers represented by the symbols. i.e. 2+2=11 is wrong if those symbols are from a base 10 numbering system but right if the symbols are from a base 3 numbering system. Edited September 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[g_bambino]

You want to make kids' comprehension of death a simple concept, but it's not.

Er, but it is. I can still recall when I was a kid - within the age range of the children mentioned in the article - and I accidentally killed my hamster. I knew it was dead, and I knew what dead meant - that hamster wasn't ever, ever coming back to life. So, rather than me oversimplifying things, it may only appear that way from your standpoint, where everything's needlessly complicated. These kids were being taught about life on a farm - real life, not the Disneyfied kind - where animals die for people to eat. Don't confound the issue with pointless convolutions about the true meaning of life and death; it is such a simple concept that even a child can grasp it.

[Riverwind]

And this confirms my point. You only believe in "concrete" evidence and will dismiss any evidence that is not "concrete" if you don't agree with the premise -- no matter how involved, how detailed, how extensive the research/studies.

There are shades of grey in this issue which you are not seeing. Even weak evidence is worth considering and I would not necessarily dismiss it entirely. The issue is evidence must always be weighed against what one is planning on doing with the conclusions based on the evidence. If one is simply looking for advice on how to help with a particular child facing a death of the loved one then an experts opinion on cognative development and understanding death is definately worth considering. I would not even require specific results from studies - an expert's opinion from 20 years experience counselling children would likely be sufficient for me to act on the advice.

However, If one is talking about bringing blanket policies that infringe on the freedom of individuals to make choices for their own children then the standard of evidence is much higher. That is why I am asking you to demonstrate that your claim that 'children can't understand death' is supported by concrete evidence.

The legal system has long accepted the idea that there are different standards of evidence depending on want one is doing. A criminal conviction requires "beyond all reasonable doubt". A civil suit is "balance of probablities". The problem I have with a lot of scientific research is people take evidence that might barely meet the "balance of probablities" and claim the conclusions are proven "beyond all reasonable doubt". Such mispresentations can lead to problems if decisions are made based on the evidence.

So whether or not you agree with the studies is irrelevant. The parents had every right to object.

There would be no debate if you suggested that parents should be allowed to opt out. The trouble is you are insisting that all children be denied the opportunity because of your opinion that children are not capable of understanding death. You have attempted rationalize your position by claiming that your opinion on child cogantive development is actually an indisputable fact yet you provide to evidence to support that assertion.

As I said earlier, some studies are not done with a specific hypothesis, but rather an open-ended question. "How do children deal with death?" would be such a question.

Then you are confirming that the studies provide no conclusive evidence that there is biological barrier that prevents some children from understanding the concept. At best, it is an assumption based on cognative development studies done for other types of learning.

I thought it would be obvious, for the sake of this discussion, that I was using our standard number system. And I think you actually, in all honestly, knew that.

Of course I knew what you intended but I wanted to illustrated how what you perceive to be an indisputable fact can become false if it used without the correct context. Edited September 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

There are shades of grey in this issue which you are not seeing. Even weak evidence is worth considering and I would not necessarily dismiss it entirely. The issue is evidence must always be weighed against what one is planning on doing with the conclusions based on the evidence. If one is simply looking for advice on how to help with a particular child facing a death of the loved one then an experts opinion on cognative development and understanding death is definately worth considering. I would not even require specific results from studies - an expert's opinion from 20 years experience counselling children would likely be sufficient for me to act on the advice.

Of course there are "shades of gray" in this issue. Many things aren't "concrete" the way numbers are. But as you said, what experts with years of education and experience have to say is "worth considering." For this reason, I find what they have to say "sufficient" to "act on the advice" and object to my young child having a vote on something he/she does not fully grasp.

However, If one is talking about bringing blanket policies that infringe on the freedom of individuals to make choices for their own children then the standard of evidence is much higher. That is why I am asking you to demonstrate that your claim that 'children can't understand death' is supported by concrete evidence.

There's credible evidence out there that they can't fully grasp the concept of death. Why should someone who objects to something that, based on the evidence, isn't age-appropriate, need to prove that it isn't age appropriate? Seems to me those still wanting to involve the kids in it would need to prove that it is age-appropriate, in spite of the studies/evidence that it's not. Here's the thing; the parents objecting have just as much a right to make choices for their children. But in this instance, it's not "parents," but the "school." If parents want to let their child have a say in the decision of whether or not an animal, an animal that they bottle-fed and named, should be slaughtered, so be it. But if they are going to put someone else's child in that position, then the evidence should be sufficient to support the objection.

The legal system has long accepted the idea that there are different standards of evidence depending on want one is doing. A criminal conviction requires "beyond all reasonable doubt". A civil suit is "balance of probablities". The problem I have with a lot of scientific research is people take evidence that might barely meet the "balance of probablities" and claim the conclusions are proven "beyond all reasonable doubt". Such mispresentations can lead to problems if decisions are made based on the evidence.

I don't think what's taught in schools is held to the same standards as "beyond all reasonable doubt," and I think you agree, which means "balance of probabilities" would apply. That being the case, then people with "a problem" with the evidence should set out to disprove it. In the meantime, it is "evidence" whether one agrees with it or not.

There would be no debate if you suggested that parents should be allowed to opt out. The trouble is you are insisting that all children be denied the opportunity because of your opinion that children are not capable of understanding death. You have attempted rationalize your position by claiming that your opinion on child cogantive development is actually an indisputable fact yet you provide to evidence to support that assertion.

Why should parents have to "opt out" if they want their child to learn the rest of the what's being offered?-- If they simply object to what experts' evidence indicates isn't 'age appropriate?'

As a side note, I'd like your opinion in regards to the lamb, which 6 year olds are supposed to distinguish from a pet, being named by the children. I find that totally inappropriate and totally irresponsible on the adults' part. This further complicates the matter, making it very difficult for a young child to distinguish from a pet, and making it more difficult to deal with the death issue for young children.

Then you are confirming that the studies provide no conclusive evidence that there is biological barrier that prevents some children from understanding the concept. At best, it is an assumption based on cognative development studies done for other types of learning.

That's your conclusion. That doesn't make it fact.

Of course I knew what you intended but I wanted to illustrated how what you perceive to be an indisputable fact can become false if it used without the correct context.

So you knew what I intended, you knew what context I was presenting it in, yet you assume to know what I perceive, and felt the need to demonstrate what you evidently presume I am unaware of.

Edited September 20, 2009 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

There's credible evidence out there that they can't fully grasp the concept of death. Why should someone who objects to something that, based on the evidence, isn't age-appropriate, need to prove that it isn't age appropriate?

In this case even the materials you provided suggest that some children in age group in question are perfectly able to grasp the concept. Since the material would be clearly appropriate for those children the question becames why are some children different than others and would the material help those children who do not understand death better understand it?

I don't think what's taught in schools is held to the same standards as "beyond all reasonable doubt," and I think you agree, which means "balance of probabilities" would apply. That being the case, then people with "a problem" with the evidence should set out to disprove it.

The onus should be on the people seeking to deny access to the material that does have educational value.

In the meantime, it is "evidence" whether one agrees with it or not.

You have certainly not presented any such evidence and you have suggested that the evidence was collected in a way that would make it impossible to demonstrate a conclusive link between cognative development and a child's understanding of death. I will put it another way: inconclusive evidence that supports your view does not mean your view is correct.

As a side note, I'd like your opinion in regards to the lamb, which 6 year olds are supposed to distinguish from a pet, being named by the children. I find that totally inappropriate and totally irresponsible on the adults' part. This further complicates the matter, making it very difficult for a young child to distinguish from a pet, and making it more difficult to deal with the death issue for young children.

Why? The teachers cannot discuss the lamb without giving it an identifer. Would it make a difference if the teacher picked the identifier (lamb chop perhaps)? I personally find depersonalizing death more distasteful. I would rather see the children taught that even if the lamb is being raised for food it is still a living thing like any pet. Edited September 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[GostHacked]

I'll say many adults do not have an idea what death is either. Most of them think something is waiting for them on the other side.

[Guest American Woman]

I'll say many adults do not have an idea what death is either. Most of them think something is waiting for them on the other side.

Death and what happens after death are two different things; and atheists/agnostics don't know what happens any more than people with religious beliefs do. In that regard no one knows what death entails.

[Guest American Woman]

In this case even the materials you provided suggest that some children in age group in question are perfectly able to grasp the concept. Since the material would be clearly appropriate for those children the question becames why are some children different than others and would the material help those children who do not understand death better understand it?

Some yes, some no. So it's not 'age appropriate' for the group.

As to whether or not it would help those children who do not understand death better, the answer would be "no" if they aren't cognitively able to understand it better.

The onus should be on the people seeking to deny access to the material that does have educational value.

When there is credible evidence in support of people objecting, the onus is on those who want to present it anyway to prove that the evidence is wrong.

You have certainly not presented any such evidence and you have suggested that the evidence was collected in a way that would make it impossible to demonstrate a conclusive link between cognative development and a child's understanding of death. I will put it another way: inconclusive evidence that supports your view does not mean your view is correct.

There isn't "inconclusive" evidence. Just because I am not willing to pay for articles/studies published in journals to "present it" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And I've pointed this out repeatedly, so I won't be addressing the "you haven't presented any such evidence" response again.

Why? The teachers cannot discuss the lamb without giving it an identifer. Would it make a difference if the teacher picked the identifier (lamb chop perhaps)? I personally find depersonalizing death more distasteful. I would rather see the children taught that even if the lamb is being raised for food it is still a living thing like any pet.

So you think a 6 year old should be able to distinguish "livestock" from a "pet" when the livestock is treated exactly as a pet is??

Can't help but wonder where you are coming from.

Edited September 21, 2009 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

There isn't "inconclusive" evidence. Just because I am not willing to pay for articles/studies published in journals to "present it" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And I've pointed this out repeatedly, so I won't be addressing the "you haven't presented any such evidence" response again.

Based on what you have already said I am not convinced that you can distinguish between 'conclusive' and 'inconclusive' evidence.

Here is an article that illustrates why failure of many academics to learn the scientific method has tragic consequences:

http://reason.com/news/show/136176.html

The phrase shaken baby syndrome entered the pop culture lexicon in 1997, when British au pair Louise Woodward was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Massachusetts infant Matthew Eappen. At the time, the medical community almost universally agreed on the symptoms of SBS.

...

The problem, Teurkheimer explains, is that the presence of three symptoms in an infant victim—bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding in the protective area of the brain, and brain swelling—have led doctors and child protective workers to immediately reach a conclusion of SBS. These symptoms have long been considered pathognomic, or exclusive, to SBS. As this line of thinking goes, if those three symptoms are present in the autopsy, then the child could only have been shaken to death.

...

Medical opinion was so uniform that the accused, like Edmunds, often didn't bother questioning the science. Instead, they'd often try to establish the possibility that someone else shook the child.

...

The research implies that human beings simply cannot shake a baby to death without an accompanying impact to the head. SBS cases, however, frequently show no external injuries. This suggests that other causes are at work. Additional research has shown babies to be lucid up to 72 hours before classic SBS symptoms set in, casting doubt on the long-held theory that the child's caretaker at the time of death (or loss of consciousness) was the likely killer.

The problem in this case was not that the orginal SBS research was unreasonable - the problem is whatever research was done was obviously inconclusive yet that did not stop academics from arguing that it is an indisputable 'fact' that could be used in court to show someone was guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

The so called "experts" that grossly misrepresented that conclusiveness of science in this trials deserve to be thrown in jail for the harm they caused. I realize that is a pretty harsh prescription but I am getting sick and tired of the total lack of accountability in the academica which allows researchers to make completely unjustified claims of certainty and never face any consequences for such irresponsible behavoir.

If you really know that the evidence for your claims is conclusive then you should be able to explain the methods used and why they would allow conclusive conclusions. You could back your claims up with links to the abstracts of the papers and leave it to me or others to decide whether to pay the access fees. However, I suspect you don't really know if the evidence is conclusive because you have simply accepted what you have been taught as fact without actually questioning it.

So you think a 6 year old should be able to distinguish "livestock" from a "pet" when the livestock is treated exactly as a pet is??

I am saying a 6 year should not have any problem understanding that all domesticated animals exist for a purpose (i.e. some exist for companionship, others exist for food). There is no difference between a pet and livestock and that it would be wrong to teach a child that livestock should be treated with less respect than a pet while it is alive. Edited September 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[PocketRocket]

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?

When I was 7 years old, the family doctor and local priest came to our door.

They had a conversation with my mother which upset my older sister terribly and caused her to run to her room crying.

The conversation used big words that a 7-yr old shouldn't be expected to understand. Words like "deceased", "cardiac arrest", and so forth.

Near the end of their conversation, my Mom turned to me and asked if I knew what was going on.

My reply was simple, "Dad is dead, and he won't be coming home any more".

Kids are smarter than we give them credit for.

(Interestingly, this is the 2nd post I've responded to today which caused me to say that.)

[ToadBrother]

2+2 only equals 4 if you are using a number system greater than base 4. If you are using base 3 then 2+2=11.

What the f***? Number bases are merely ways of encoding numbers. Whether it's 4, or binary 100 or IV or whatever, it's still four.

[Guest American Woman]

When I was 7 years old, the family doctor and local priest came to our door.

They had a conversation with my mother which upset my older sister terribly and caused her to run to her room crying.

The conversation used big words that a 7-yr old shouldn't be expected to understand. Words like "deceased", "cardiac arrest", and so forth.

Near the end of their conversation, my Mom turned to me and asked if I knew what was going on.

My reply was simple, "Dad is dead, and he won't be coming home any more".

So if every child in the world were like you, you'd have a point. As it is, you are just one example that doesn't speak for all children.

Kids are smarter than we give them credit for.

(Interestingly, this is the 2nd post I've responded to today which caused me to say that.)

Being "smart" and being cognitively unable to grasp something are two different things. One child may learn to read at four while another doesn't learn to read until six. That doesn't make the first child "smarter" than the second child. It also doesn't mean because the first child could read at age four that all children should be expected to be able to read at age four.

[Riverwind]

What the f***? Number bases are merely ways of encoding numbers. Whether it's 4, or binary 100 or IV or whatever, it's still four.

From the sentence it should have be obvious that I was thinking of the symbols written on sheet paper and not the abstract number 4. I probably should have clarified that in my point.

[Guest TrueMetis]

When I was 7 years old, the family doctor and local priest came to our door.

They had a conversation with my mother which upset my older sister terribly and caused her to run to her room crying.

The conversation used big words that a 7-yr old shouldn't be expected to understand. Words like "deceased", "cardiac arrest", and so forth.

Near the end of their conversation, my Mom turned to me and asked if I knew what was going on.

My reply was simple, "Dad is dead, and he won't be coming home any more".

Kids are smarter than we give them credit for.

(Interestingly, this is the 2nd post I've responded to today which caused me to say that.)

Dude that sucks. You're right though kids have been expected to kill and butcher animals for hundreds of years. So when did kids become so bloody frail?

[PocketRocket]

Dude that sucks.

Thanks, friend, but everyone goes through it sooner or later, it just happened to me earlier than some. The rest of your post will be using in a moment.....

So if every child in the world were like you, you'd have a point.

If every child in the world were like me, we'd all be in big trouble

As it is, you are just one example that doesn't speak for all children.

True enough.

Being "smart" and being cognitively unable to grasp something are two different things. One child may learn to read at four while another doesn't learn to read until six. That doesn't make the first child "smarter" than the second child. It also doesn't mean because the first child could read at age four that all children should be expected to be able to read at age four.

Also true, however, speaking in context of this thread.....

You're right though kids have been expected to kill and butcher animals for hundreds of years. So when did kids become so bloody frail?

Throughout history kids have watched as their parents killed and butchered animals to feed their families. It was simply the way life was. As True Metis stated, kids also often took part in the killing and butchering. It was a reality of their existence, as necessary to their survival as oxygen.

This school program, along with teaching kids about farming, raising livestock, etc, could also be interpreted as life lessons. Sooner or later kid have to learn about death. It could be argued that learning about it this way, with animals that the kids have no heavy emotional attachment to, is kinder than having their first experience with death being due to the loss of a loved one.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE =American Woman: So if every child in the world were like you, you'd have a point.

If every child in the world were like me, we'd all be in big trouble

I'm sure that's not true. Yet my point stands. Every child is different, and there are exceptions to every rule. People who work with Hospice and professionals who work with children who had to deal with death are basing their findings on a multitude of experiences/cases.

QUOTE=American Woman: Being "smart" and being cognitively unable to grasp something are two different things. One child may learn to read at four while another doesn't learn to read until six. That doesn't make the first child "smarter" than the second child. It also doesn't mean because the first child could read at age four that all children should be expected to be able to read at age four.

Also true, however, speaking in context of this thread..... QUOTE=TrueMetis: You're right though kids have been expected to kill and butcher animals for hundreds of years. So when did kids become so bloody frail?

Throughout history kids have watched as their parents killed and butchered animals to feed their families. It was simply the way life was. As True Metis stated, kids also often took part in the killing and butchering. It was a reality of their existence, as necessary to their survival as oxygen.

This school program, along with teaching kids about farming, raising livestock, etc, could also be interpreted as life lessons. Sooner or later kid have to learn about death. It could be argued that learning about it this way, with animals that the kids have no heavy emotional attachment to, is kinder than having their first experience with death being due to the loss of a loved one.

Just because some kids used to take place in the killing and butchering "because it was a way of life" is no reason to expect more of children than they are cognitively able to handle. And who's to say all that killing and butchering didn't affect kids in some way?

I haven't mentioned this because it is just one example, too, but my mom (who lost her mother when she was 1 1/2 and her dad when she was 9) remembers very little about losing them. Of course she was too young when she lost her mom, but she was older than some of the kids in the project when she lost her dad. And yet, though she remembers little about that (I'm sure she's repressed her memories), she has vivid memories of him butchering the animals that he raised, and they are troublesome memories. So again, kids are not all the same.

Furthermore, I think having only one animal, concentrating on only one animal that was named, forms a different attachment than a barn full of animals. The kids who were raised with that, who took part in the butchering, likely had no emotional feelings about it, which is why whether they were fully able to comprehend death or not wouldn't even be an issue. It wasn't done as a "learning experience," it was, as has already been stated, "a way of life," and as such, I see as different than thinking kids "have to learn about this firsthand." Kids are exposed to a lot of things in life, good and bad, if that's what they are living through, but that doesn't mean when they aren't exposed to it, we should make sure they are -- or that they'd be ready to deal with it if they were.

Edited October 17, 2009 by American Woman