Animal rights wackos run rampant

[Riverwind]

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.

You are confusing issues. The voting age and driving age are necessary but arbitrary designations because we want an easy way to determine if someone should be allowed to participate. In fact, I doubt that any scientific assessment has gone into determining why those ages are choosen and in both cases the 'maturity' argument is an after the fact rationization for an arbitrary number.

In this case we are talking about participating in a school activity and there is no particular need for an arbitrary number for administrative purposes. You are basically saying that if somes kids are not able to participate in activity X then no kids should be allowed to participate. That is an unreasonable position.

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.

I don't see how any scientific test could demonstrate that causality. I suspect it is a causality made up by people who are looking to promote their pet theories on child development.

[Guest American Woman]

In this case we are talking about participating in a school activity and there is no particular need for an arbitrary number for administrative purposes. You are basically saying that if somes kids are not able to participate in activity X then no kids should be allowed to participate. That is an unreasonable position.

No, it isn't an unreasonable position. It's not unreasonable to expect that a school activity be age appropriate for all of the ages in the group. Take sex education, as another example. You won't find the same information being presented to kindergartners as is presented to kids in jr. high. And that's quite reasonable. What isn't reasonable is to present something that isn't age appropriate.

I don't see how any scientific test could demonstrate that causality. I suspect it is a causality made up by people who are looking to promote their pet theories on child development.

Regardless of what you suspect, the reality is as I presented it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to promote the idea that children cannot comprehend the finality of death if that weren't the case, but since you chose not to believe, so be it. There's no sense discussing it any further, but your stance is based on what you choose to believe, not what is.

[M.Dancer]

Give enough time on the farm and the kids will not only see the circle of life in action, they will see applied sex ed too...

Really, this is such a fart in a hurricane....kids are a lot smarter than you think....they will figure out the finality of death over dinner.

[Riverwind]

Regardless of what you suspect, the reality is as I presented it.

Where is your evidence? All I have seen is claims made with no reference to the evidence that supports the claims.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to promote the idea that children cannot comprehend the finality of death if that weren't the case

Wake up and smell the coffee. Academics always interpret evidence in ways that supports their pet theories. Sometimes these interpretations are reasonable - in other cases the interpretations are nonsense. When it comes to any science related to sociology the best starting assumption is that any studies represent nothing more than the opinion of the authors. In some cases the actual evidence may support the claims but one cannot know that without looking at the evidence instead of relying on the conclusions drawn by the authors.

your stance is based on what you choose to believe, not what is.

Your stance is no different and is based entirely on your belief that children are not able to comprehend death because of some biological constraint. I am not convinced that this is the case but I would be interested to see what actual evidence exists. Edited September 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

Your stance is no different and is based entirely on your belief that children are not able to comprehend death because of some biological constraint. I am not convinced that this is the case but I would be interested to see what actual evidence exists.

My stance is based on the evidence that's out there; it's not "my" belief, while your belief is "your" belief. If you would be interested in finding out more about it, you'll have to seek more information, as I have, because I can post information from several sources, from several different sites, that all confirm what I say -- but you simply say "I don't believe it" in response, so what's the point? I've seen nothing else to refute what I've posted other than your refusal to believe what others who are educated in this field have to say.

[Bonam]

My stance is based on the evidence that's out there; it's not "my" belief, while your belief is "your" belief. If you would be interested in finding out more about it, you'll have to seek more information, as I have, because I can post information from several sources, from several different sites, that all confirm what I say -- but you simply say "I don't believe it" in response, so what's the point? I've seen nothing else to refute what I've posted other than your refusal to believe what others who are educated in this field have to say.

You have provided nothing except a link to a website that provides advice that is not supported with any scientific studies. Just because something is written on a website doesn't make it the truth. If you have some peer reviewed scientific studies that back up your statements you can link to them.

[M.Dancer]

You have provided nothing except a link to a website that provides advice that is not supported with any scientific studies. Just because something is written on a website doesn't make it the truth. If you have some peer reviewed scientific studies that back up your statements you can link to them.

.

I think we can do better ...10,000 years of pre industrial civilization....where humans cohabitated with their animals, ate, copulated, defecated, gave birth and died all in the same room. And they did all this without the benefit of peer reviewed studies with little ill effect.

Fart in a hurricane.

[Guest American Woman]

You have provided nothing except a link to a website that provides advice that is not supported with any scientific studies. Just because something is written on a website doesn't make it the truth. If you have some peer reviewed scientific studies that back up your statements you can link to them.

As I already said, the same information I posted is provided by several sources on the net, and you can read books on the topic, and talk to child psychologists and pediatricians, and take classes on death and dying, and they will all say the same thing. Or you can choose to refute what people who are educated in the field have to say with nothing other than your refusal to believe it. At any rate, I won't be searching for what you are asking for because I really don't care if you believe it or not, so you'll have to do your own homework on the subject.

[Bonam]

As I already said, the same information I posted is provided by several sources on the net, and you can read books on the topic, and talk to child psychologists and pediatricians, and take classes on death and dying, and they will all say the same thing. Or you can choose to refute what people who are educated in the field have to say with nothing other than your refusal to believe it. At any rate, I won't be searching for what you are asking for because I really don't care if you believe it or not, so you'll have to do your own homework on the subject.

You're the one trying to convince us of your proposition - that children cannot grasp the finality of death until a certain age. The burden of proof is yours.

[Riverwind]

My stance is based on the evidence that's out there

I doubt you even looked at the evidence unless you happened to have studied the topic. You have probably only read what I have read which is claims made by experts that do not explain what evidence that supports the claims.

More importantly, the claims that are made make it clear that some children over the age of 6 are able to comprehend death but they don't explain why this is true. The fact that some children do have the ability is clear evidence that if there is a biological reason for the lack of understanding it does not affect all children. If it does not affect all children then one cannot exclude environment as the reason for the difference. If one cannot exclude environment then one must devise a experiment that can control for environment and test a child's understanding of death. But there are many aspects of a child's environment and it would take many, many controlled experiments to determine which ones might affect the child's understanding of death. However, funding constraints and the relative importance of the issue make it highly unlikely that such a complex study was ever undertaken. This means the claim that a child's understanding of death is biologically determined is most likely an opinion based on inconclusive evidence and should be viewed skeptically.

Last point: a consensus of experts does not make something true. Many times experts do not question what they are told by other experts and accept it as fact. Eventually, views become so entrenched it becomes impossible to advance alternate views. That is why I always ask for the evidence supporting a view instead of accepting an 'argument from authority'.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

You're the one trying to convince us of your proposition - that children cannot grasp the finality of death until a certain age. The burden of proof is yours.

I'm not trying to "convince" anyone of anything. I simply posted the information regarding children's ages and their ability/inability to grasp the finality of death based on the findings of people who are educated in the field, and you, so far, have refuted it with "your belief." Anyone who wanted to could come up with numerous sites saying the same thing I posted, but since you haven't come up with even one source to back up your claim, the ball's in your court.

[Bonam]

Anyone who wanted to could come up with numerous sites saying the same thing I posted, but since you haven't come up with even one source to back up your claim, the ball's in your court.

Coming up with "numerous sites" about something is hardly worth anything. So what? Reread the last paragraph of Riverwind's post:

Last point: a consensus of experts does not make something true. Many times experts do not question what they are told by other experts and accept it as fact. Eventually, views become so entrenched it becomes impossible to advance alternate views. That is why I always ask for the evidence supporting a view instead of accepting an 'argument from authority'.

He makes a good point.

[Guest American Woman]

I doubt you even looked at the evidence unless you happened to have studied the topic. You have probably only read what I have read which is claims made by experts that do not explain what evidence that supports the claims.

I have actually studied the topic, which is why I believe what I do regarding my initial post in this thread.

More importantly, the claims that are made make it clear that some children over the age of 6 are able to comphrend death but they don't explain why this is true. The fact that some children do have the ability is clear evidence that if there is a biological reason for the lack of understanding it does not affect all children.

The fact that all children aren't able to comprehend the same thing at the same time applies to all areas of knowledge, not just death and dying. Furthermore, it says they begin to comprehend it, but it isn't until much older that they fully comprehend the finality of it.

If it does not affect all children then one cannot exclude environment as the reason for the difference.

Where are you getting "it doesn't affect all children" from?

If one cannot exclude environment then one must devise a experiment that can control for environment and test a child's understanding of death. But there are many aspects of a child's environment and it would take many, many controlled experiments to determine which ones might affect the child's understanding of death. However, funding constraints and the relative importance of the issue make it highly unlikely that such a complex study was ever undertaken. This means the claim that a child's understanding of death is biologicalically determined should be viewed skeptically.

Many studies have been done over the years. This is not a new concept.

Last point: a consensus of experts does not make something true. Many times experts do not question what they are told by other experts and accept it as fact. Eventually, views become so entrenched it becomes impossible to advance alternate views.

That can be said about anything. But then again, many experts do question what they are told by other experts, and I can think of no reason why this would be one area that all experts are simply "unquestioningly" accepting; I would think they've done a bit of studying/research on the subject themselves.

But again, to simply say that "experts can be wrong" as your rebuttal is really no argument at all. As I said, no one has come up with anything other than their 'disbelief' to refute what the experts have to say.

Edited September 17, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest TrueMetis]

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.

Even if you don't consider Veggies alive (Even though they are whether they're a fruit, the entire plant or the root) The millions of insects that are killed are definatlly alive.

The age is 8 actually and they can legally hunt where I live.

Edited September 17, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Riverwind]

The fact that all children aren't able to comprehend the same thing at the same time applies to all areas of knowledge, not just death and dying. Furthermore, it says they begin to comprehend it, but it isn't until much older that they fully comprehend the finality of it.

The issue is not the fact that kids develop at different rates - the issue is whether this development is driven by biological or environmental factors.

Many studies have been done over the years. This is not a new concept.

Ok. So how did they control for the environment? Did the do studies that compare livestock farm kids with city kids with lives that are otherwise the same? Did they take into account that understanding the concept of death when it comes to animals may be different than humans? Do you really think a kid that kills a mosquito does not understand that the thing is dead and what that means?

That can be said about anything.

Yes it can. But some fields are more subject to group think than others. Fields where it is impossible to prove a claim one way or another are the most likely to be subject to groupthink because the established academics can make life miserable for up and coming academics that oppose there views.

But again, to simply say that "experts can be wrong" as your rebuttal is really no argument at all.

I explained the logic that leads me to be skeptical of this particular claim. I am also not saying it is wrong. I am just saying that I doubt it is a conclusively proven fact. Edited September 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Melanie_]

The problem with "scholarly articles" is that often you have to subscribe to the journal in order to retrieve them off the web. But there are plenty of websites that explain children's understanding of death, and they all agree that there are specific stages linked to age. Generally speaking, these correspond to Jean Piaget's stages of cognitive development. One of the indicators that a child has passed from the preoperational stage (2 - 7 years old) into the concrete operations stage (7 - 12 years old) is the child's understanding of irreversibility. In the preoperational stage, children see death as being something that can reverse - someone might be dead, but can come back to life. A child in concrete operations begins to understand that death is permanent.

I understand some might find it unpleasant to expose children to death as a school project, but it really happens all the time. Children have goldfish in their classrooms, bring tadpoles in to watch them change into frogs (and then the frogs mysteriously disappear overnight), and discuss the life cycle of all animals. The children didn't actually see the lamb die, so it was still somewhat abstract, and they had the opportunity to understand the reality of where their food comes from.

[M.Dancer]

I was 7 when they told me that my father had been killed.

I knew he would never come home again.

I would have liked to have learned that life the lesson on lambs....

[Guest American Woman]

The age is 8 actually and they can legally hunt where I live.

So are you saying this information is incorrect?

Junior Licence

A Junior Hunting Licence can only be issued to a parent or guardian on behalf of his /her

child or ward who is 10 years of age or older and under the age of 14. The junior

hunter need not have completed a hunter training program but must be accompanied

and under the close supervision of an adult who carries the proper licences. Wildlife

taken by the junior under this licence is included in the bag limit of the accompanying

licensed adult.

[Guest American Woman]

I understand some might find it unpleasant to expose children to death as a school project, but it really happens all the time. Children have goldfish in their classrooms, bring tadpoles in to watch them change into frogs (and then the frogs mysteriously disappear overnight), and discuss the life cycle of all animals. The children didn't actually see the lamb die, so it was still somewhat abstract, and they had the opportunity to understand the reality of where their food comes from.

There is a difference between exposing kids to life and death and kids being involved in making live-or-die decisions. I see nothing wrong with learning about life through pets in school, which is the situation you describe. However, that's different from asking a six/seven/eight year old 'should we kill the lamb to get some baby pigs.' Bottom line --I wouldn't want my children voting on something they couldn't comprehend. There's really no "learning" value in that.

Edited September 17, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest TrueMetis]

So are you saying this information is incorrect?

Junior Licence

A Junior Hunting Licence can only be issued to a parent or guardian on behalf of his /her

child or ward who is 10 years of age or older and under the age of 14. The junior

hunter need not have completed a hunter training program but must be accompanied

and under the close supervision of an adult who carries the proper licences. Wildlife

taken by the junior under this licence is included in the bag limit of the accompanying

licensed adult.

Ok so it's illegal but it doesn't change the fact that they do it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

There is a difference between exposing kids to life and death and kids being involved in making live-or-die decisions. I see nothing wrong with learning about life through pets in school, which is the situation you describe. However, that's different from asking a six year old 'should we kill the lamb to get some baby pigs.' Bottom line --I wouldn't want my children voting on something they couldn't comprehend. There's really no "learning" value in that.

Then don't let your children do it but don't tell other how to raise their kids.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok so it's illegal but it doesn't change the fact that they do it.

But it makes it wrong, doesn't it? And that's what's at issue here, not whether they do it or not.

[Guest American Woman]

Then don't let your children do it but don't tell other how to raise their kids.

Who am I telling how to raise their kids? There were objections, some by parents, to this school project -- and I'm stating why I, too, would object. That's no more telling others how to raise their kids than you're agreeing with the project is.

[Guest TrueMetis]

But it makes it wrong, doesn't it? And that's what's at issue here, not whether they do it or not.

Ask one of the kids who go hunting whether it's wrong and they'll think your nuts, ask anyone in my town if it's wrong and they won't care, even the cops.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Who am I telling how to raise their kids? There were objections, some by parents, to this school project -- and I'm stating why I, too, would object. That's no more telling others how to raise their kids than you're agreeing with the project is.

When you said that letting kids that young do it is wrong. That's taking away one of their chocies which in effect is telling them how to raise their kids. This is a decision made by 3 people the kid and his parents if the parents don't like it they will take the kids out.