Animal rights wackos run rampant

[Alta4ever]

And the post I was responding to was in regards to an 8 year old doing the hunting, making that bit of information totally irrelevant.

I'm sure the 8 year old was on thier own, do the stalking, tracking, killing, and carcus transporting. The eight year old was along for the ride.

[Guest American Woman]

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FW/2C...L02_168421.html

In Ontario the age in which you can use a firearm is 16. Not sure about actual hunting, but I will assume it is 16 in ontario.

Non-residents have to be 16, but it's different for residents. Evidently a 15 year old Ontario resident can get a license and a 12 year old can get a license to hunt with a mentor, but it sounds as if the requirements to obtain a license are rather strict --link

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sure the 8 year old was on thier own, do the stalking, tracking, killing, and carcus transporting. The eight year old was along for the ride.

Whether the 8 year old was on their own is irrelevant. It's illegal for an 8 year old to hunt period. With or without someone; and the 8 year old in question, the statement I was responding to, was in regards to an 8 year old hunting, not one who was "along for the ride." It's all right here in this thread, so perhaps in the future you should be aware of what you are responding to before you respond; then I won't have to waste my time with re-posting.

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.

I'm wondering just where a six year old (make that 6-11 year olds) can legally hunt, though.

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

I'll repeat now, just so I don't have to later, that an 8 year old cannot legally hunt in BC. And furthermore, when someone does something illegal, it's "wrong." Hence my response. I hope this clears up what should have been a very simple matter for once and for all.

[Alta4ever]

Whether the 8 year old was on their own is irrelevant. It's illegal for an 8 year old to hunt period. With or without someone; and the 8 year old in question, the statement I was responding to, was in regards to an 8 year old hunting, not one who was "along for the ride." It's all right here in this thread, so perhaps in the future you should be aware of what you are responding to before you respond; then I won't have to waste my time with re-posting.

I'll repeat now, just so I don't have to later, that an 8 year old cannot legally hunt in BC. And furthermore, when someone does something illegal, it's "wrong." Hence my response. I hope this clears up what should have been a very simple matter for once and for all.

Was the child actually hunting? Or was the father doing the hunting? For the child to hunt they would have to have their own ticket and be out to get their own animal. In the case above, the child was assiting the father not the other way around. You must be city born and raised you seem to understand nothing of how the world actually works, just the bubble you live in.

Why do you think that fish and wildlife leaves these people alone?

Edited September 17, 2009 by Alta4ever

[GostHacked]

Non-residents have to be 16, but it's different for residents. Evidently a 15 year old Ontario resident can get a license and a 12 year old can get a license to hunt with a mentor, but it sounds as if the requirements to obtain a license are rather strict --link

As it should be. Firearms saftey is key to properly using a firearm, no matter what situation you are in. I recall my father one time smacking me over the head when I looked down the barrel of a gun. I knew it was empty because it was in parts and on the table being cleaned by my father. But at that point when his hand smacked my head, he asked 'how do you know it was not loaded??!?!? I told him why it was not loaded. He smiled, and knew I understood a very important rule for gun saftey.

If you respect the firearm in that fashion, you will minimnize any unintentional harm it can cause. Sometimes common sense needs to prevail as well. A little off topic now.

Was the lamb even real?

[Guest American Woman]

Was the child actually hunting? Or was the father doing the hunting?

Good God. I repeat. Again. This is what was said: "I know kids around this age who have killed animals themselves while hunting with their dad ..." That's "killed animals themselves." And it's illegal for an 8 year olds to "kill animals themselves."

For the child to hunt they would have to have their own ticket and be out to get their own animal.

Not if they were doing it illegally!

In the case above, the child was assiting the father not the other way around.

The eight year old in question is said to have "killed the animal himself!" What about that don't you get? It's illegal. ILLEGAL.

You must be city born and raised you seem to understand nothing of how the world actually works, just the bubble you live in.

Why do you think that fish and wildlife leaves these people alone?

What size city I live in is irrelevant because I understand how the world works a lot better than you do, because I understand that according to TrueMetis, the 8 year olds "killed the animals themselves." The father didn't "assist." They "killed the animals themselves," which even TrueMetis is able to admit is ILLEGAL. That makes it "wrong."

I don't even know if fish and wildlife do leave these people alone, since TrueMetis said COPS don't care; he said nothing about fish and wildlife.

Edited September 17, 2009 by American Woman

[Alta4ever]

Good God. I repeat. Again. This is what was said: "I know kids around this age who have killed animals themselves while hunting with their dad ..." That's "killed animals themselves." And it's illegal for an 8 year olds to "kill animals themselves."

Not if they were doing it illegally!

The eight year old in question is said to have "killed the animal himself!" What about that don't you get? It's illegal. ILLEGAL.

What size city I live in is irrelevant because I understand how the world works a lot better than you do, because I understand that according to TrueMetis, the 8 year olds "killed the animals themselves." The father didn't "assist." They "killed the animals themselves," which even TrueMetis is able to admit is ILLEGAL. That makes it "wrong."

I don't even know if fish and wildlife do leave these people alone, since TrueMetis said COPS don't care; he said nothing about fish and wildlife.

It was not illegal if it was they would have been brought up on paching charges to say the least which fish and wildlife takes very seriously. It was the father doing the hunting as the hunting extends to more then just the kill. The Father was doing the hunting the child was assiting. Which is not illegal. The law that you are refering to is to prevent a child from going out on thier own. That is what is illegal, not taking your child on "your" hunting trip.

[Guest American Woman]

As it should be. Firearms saftey is key to properly using a firearm, no matter what situation you are in. I recall my father one time smacking me over the head when I looked down the barrel of a gun. I knew it was empty because it was in parts and on the table being cleaned by my father. But at that point when his hand smacked my head, he asked 'how do you know it was not loaded??!?!? I told him why it was not loaded. He smiled, and knew I understood a very important rule for gun saftey.

If you respect the firearm in that fashion, you will minimnize any unintentional harm it can cause. Sometimes common sense needs to prevail as well. A little off topic now.

I agree completely. It's unbelievable how trigger-happy some people can get during hunting season. I think that's the only time some people from the city ever set foot in the woods and about the only time they ever see a wild animal.

Was the lamb even real?

Yes, it was a real, live lamb. Named Marcus.

[Guest American Woman]

It was not illegal if it was they would have been brought up on paching charges to say the least which fish and wildlife takes very seriously. It was the father doing the hunting as the hunting extends to more then just the kill. The Father was doing the hunting the child was assiting. Which is not illegal. The law that you are refering to is to prevent a child from going out on thier own. That is what is illegal, not taking your child on "your" hunting trip.

This was "THE KILL." Not the "more than." And even TrueMetis, whose made the claim, admitted that it's ILLEGAL. Seriously. Can't you comprehend what's being said??

[Alta4ever]

Yes, it was a real, live lamb. Named Marcus.

So what I have a real live steer that grazed about a hundred yards south of the house that was named gilbert before it was meat in the freezer.

[Alta4ever]

This was "THE KILL." Not the "more than." And even TrueMetis, whose made the claim, admitted that it's ILLEGAL. Seriously. Can't you comprehend what's being said??

No you led him/her to beleive that.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Alta4ever

[Guest American Woman]

No you led him/her to beleive that.

Yes, that's it. I, an American, "led" TrueMetis to believe what's legal and illegal in his province in Canada. It wasn't his ability to understand the law; it was little ol' me who "led" him to believe that it's illegal for 8 year olds to kill by themselves in BC.

Oh, the power of Americans!

Edited September 17, 2009 by American Woman

[Alta4ever]

Yes, that's it. I, an American, "led" TrueMetis to believe what's legal and illegal in his province in Canada. It wasn't his ability to understand the law; it was little ol' me who "led" him to believe that it's illegal for 8 year olds to kill by themselves in BC.

Oh, the power of Americans!

He did not question whether it was or wasn't just bel;eived what you him him/her.

[Tawasakm]

You may claim that I don't have any "real" back up, since you simply dismiss the information I did post, and as you ignore the information that Melanie posted, but you don't have any back up at all.

This is what you fail to take on board and which I was trying to bring you to. Unless you provide sources and cites you have no back up either. There is absolutely zero difference between my assertion and yours except that you claim to have a basis in well researched sources. The fact that you claim these are easy to find and still fail to make any effort to source them to back up your assertion robs your point of validity. I am more than happy to check sources provided to back your argument but your unwillingness to provide from your apparently easily found well of excellent research more or less leads me to believe your argument is nothing more than opinion - as is mine. Your blanket excuse that everyone will simply ignore or dismiss it is hardly inspiring me to believe there is any weight behind your asserted evidence.

At least I am honest enough to say that it is my opinion based on my personal experience.

[Oleg Bach]

Saw my coo coo X last night - She was going down the street and passed me standing in front of the club. She ignored me ---she does not need me..She has a new dog, a Jack Russell that she coddles in her arms like a crazed empty nester.....Never thought I would have a family member that would become the typical flaky Toronto liberal - Liberals that smile at every passing dog as if they were children and ignore the human being on the end of the leash as if they were vile dirt. Humans have become more loyal to another species than to their own human family.

Woman are wed to dogs these days - because they have "unconditional love" .... I hate that term - sure they are sweet - but they actually have unconditional hunger and an addiction to human touch and stroking....when I see a woman stop and fondle my dog - I look her in the eye and say "what about me?" Well needless to say they are taken back. NOPE - humans first - animals second...My parents were old school ancient orthodox Russian Christians...my mother would say "There is nothing above your parents - not money - not status - not the government - only God is above your father and I..below is YOU - and below that are the family pets and then the beasts of the field..below them are the creeping things and below that are the microbes -----THESE OLD TIMERS HAD THE UNIVERSE IN ORDER - WE ARE OUT OF ORDER.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE =American Woman: You may claim that I don't have any "real" back up, since you simply dismiss the information I did post, and as you ignore the information that Melanie posted, but you don't have any back up at all.

This is what you fail to take on board and which I was trying to bring you to. Unless you provide sources and cites you have no back up either. There is absolutely zero difference between my assertion and yours except that you claim to have a basis in well researched sources.

Your claim is not equal to the site I sourced, which is Hospice; so if you think you are as knowledgeable as a huge organization whose purpose is to help people deal with death, if you think your 'personal experience' is comparable to information they have posted on the web, then so be it -- but that doesn't make it true.

The fact that you claim these are easy to find and still fail to make any effort to source them to back up your assertion robs your point of validity. I am more than happy to check sources provided to back your argument but your unwillingness to provide from your apparently easily found well of excellent research more or less leads me to believe your argument is nothing more than opinion - as is mine.

Again, I quoted Hospice, and you claim that all I've offered is "my opinion?" I suppose if you use NASA as a source that makes a statement about space, and I say "show me the research that made them come to that conclusion," you would accept my claim that NASA isn't a credible source without all the background information that went into the statement? You would accept it if I said, "your source is no more credible than my opinion?" Because I'm thinking you wouldn't.

Furthermore, I would accept a statement put out by NASA about space as credible, just as a statement put out about death and dying from Hospice is credible. Furthermore, it's not only Hospice that posts that information. As I said, this information is on the web on many sites. Bereavement groups post it, 'helping children grieve' sites post it, 'helping children deal with the death of a pet' sites post it, etc. Melanie has also pointed out that "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."

So as for the studies behind the information, as Melanie also already pointed out, "the problem with 'scholarly articles' is that often you have to subscribe to the journal in order to retrieve them off the web." I've studied in this area, I've read books, and I've also, like you, had personal experiences. The thing is, people still take classes, read books, read journals, etc. because there are other sources besides the net.

Your blanket excuse that everyone will simply ignore or dismiss it is hardly inspiring me to believe there is any weight behind your asserted evidence.

The fact that you dismiss information from Hospice as "my opinion" pretty much says it all.

At least I am honest enough to say that it is my opinion based on my personal experience.

And at least I posted a link to a reputable source to back up my claim. It's not "my opinion," as I have repeatedly pointed out, so why would I "say that it is?" Hospice didn't ask me for my opinion and then post it on the web as fact.

Edited September 18, 2009 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

if you think your 'personal experience' is comparable to information they have posted on the web, then so be it -- but that doesn't make it true.

I don't see how an organization that deals primarily with children affected by the death of someone close to them is going to have any particular insight into whether a child's ability to understand death is biological or environmental. All they deal with is the fact that some kids can comphrend it and some can't so they develop strategies to help those kids.

I suppose if you use NASA as a source that makes a statement about space, and I say "show me the research that made them come to that conclusion," you would accept my claim that NASA isn't a credible source without all the background information that went into the statement?

Bad example. A lot of what NASA deals with are verifiable facts and when it comes to that kind of information there is no need to question it. However, NASA does deal with a lot of other science with is nothing but speculation and guess work. In the latter case one cannot accept what NASA says as fact unless one understands that caveats and limitations of the studies used to make the claims. For example, all of the studies used by NASA to claim that CO2 is an immediate threat to society is based on complex computer models which, in turn, depend entirely on non-physical fudge factors that are selected because they produce the results expected by the scientist. This does not mean that such studies are wrong but is does mean that they cannot be assumed to be true even if an organization like NASA treats them as fact.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't see how an organization that deals primarily with children affected by the death of someone close to them is going to have any particular insight into whether a child's ability to understand death is biological or environmental. All they deal with is the fact that some kids can comphrend it and some can't so they develop strategies to help those kids.

You don't see how an organization that deals primarily with children affected by the death of someone close to them would be knowledgeable in children's ability to comprehend death? You don't think that they would seek credible information that would help them in that regard? What do you think -- that they just pulled what I posted out of their hat? Of course such a credible organization would be knowledgeable in that information and would make sure that what they present is credible.

And you yourself are now admitting that some kids can't comprehend it.

Bad example. A lot of what NASA deals with are verifiable facts and when it comes to that kind of information there is no need to question it. However, NASA does deal with a lot of other science with is nothing but speculation and guess work. In the latter case one cannot accept what NASA says as fact unless one understands that caveats and limitations of the studies used to make the claims. For example, all of the studies used by NASA to claim that CO2 is an immediate threat to society is based on complex computer models which, in turn, depend entirely on non-physical fudge factors that are selected because they produce the results expected by the scientist. This does not mean that such studies are wrong but is does mean that they cannot be assumed to be true even if an organization like NASA treats them as fact.

No, it was a good example; and your response is a perfect example of why it's not worth my time to look for information that people would simply dismiss as "such studies might not be wrong, but they can't be assumed to be true." In other words, you simply dismiss anything that doesn't support what you choose to believe.

Edited September 18, 2009 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

And you yourself are now admitting that some kids can't comprehend it.

I never disputed that. All I claimed is that we don't necessarily know that the reason for the lack of understanding is biological or environmental. I am skeptical on this point because I cannot see how any study could conclusively show it is primarily biological.

Here is an anecdote that demonstrates why I don't defer to "experts" automatically when I have reason to doubt the claims.

I was talking with a climate scientist about the statistical problems with the iconic "hockey stick" graph. His response was basically, I don't understand the statistics but I trust the guy who did the study and will assume he did it right. His respond illustrates how experts tend to trust other experts and that it not reasonable to assume that one expert verifies the claims of another. What is more likely is they just accepted them as truth. That makes the second expert's claims nothing more than a opinion.

No, it was a good example; and your response is a perfect example of why it's not worth my time to look for information that people would simply dismiss as "such studies might not be wrong, but they can't be assumed to be true." In other words, you simply dismiss anything that doesn't support what you choose to believe.

It all comes down to how the studies were done. What you can't seem to grasp is science is not some infalliable process that produces reliable results most of the time. It is an extremely flawed process that tends to produce results that suit the preconceptions of the scientists doing the research. The only exception to this rule is when there are independently verifiable facts that support the conclusions.

In the case of a child's understanding of death I am asking what methodologies were used to draw the conclusions and what caveats go with those methodologies. It is quite possible that the actual scientific studies are a lot less certain than you claim but the uncertainties and caveats were let out by people quoting the conclusions.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[Alta4ever]

I don't see how an organization that deals primarily with children affected by the death of someone close to them is going to have any particular insight into whether a child's ability to understand death is biological or environmental. All they deal with is the fact that some kids can comphrend it and some can't so they develop strategies to help those kids.

Heck of a lot different then dealing with what death means to an animal going to the slaughter house. I was a child who lost someone close to me at a young age and my bother at a young age, I can tell you from personal experiance these types of organizations are full of sh__.

[Tawasakm]

American Woman so far as I can see you are using an appeal to authority rather than linking to actual studies to back up your argument. Furthermore I suspect you are generalising. Kids dealing with death amongst friends and families is not necessarily analogous to kids dealing with death of any kind. This is why I want to see the source of your reasoning rather than an organisation which you think reflects your opinion (although I doubt their conclusions draw in any way from research on how kids deal with death amongst livestock). I get the feeling however that you are going to continue to say this is your proof and makes what you say fact.

Guess I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman so far as I can see you are using an appeal to authority rather than linking to actual studies to back up your argument.

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.

Furthermore I suspect you are generalising. Kids dealing with death amongst friends and families is not necessarily analogous to kids dealing with death of any kind.

Of course "dealing with death" is different when it's amongst friends and family vs. livestock, but the issue here isn't "dealing" with death, but rather "comprehending" it. Two very different things.

This is why I want to see the source of your reasoning rather than an organisation which you think reflects your opinion (although I doubt their conclusions draw in any way from research on how kids deal with death amongst livestock).

Again, it's not research into how kids "deal" with death, but rather their comprehension of death. Furthermore, it's not an organization that reflects "my opinion" about death. For some reason you seem unable to move on from insisting that this is "my opinion," when it's not. I've studied in this area, and as a result, have knowledge in this area. That's quite different from "an opinion" and Hospice simply being an organization that "reflects my opinion." And again, it's not just Hospice presenting this material. I'll point out yet again that other organizations present the same information; that child psychologists present the same information. Melanie and I have both pointed out that it's easy to find information on the net confirming this information, and again, it's not all being presented by Hospice.

I get the feeling however that you are going to continue to say this is your proof and makes what you say fact.

You can look into it further, or keep insisting that what I'm presenting is wrong even though you have not studied any information in this area. An organization like Hospice is not going to latch onto information without verifying it's validity. As has been pointed out twice now, it's linked to cognitive ability and age. It's linked to a child's understanding of irreversibility. It's been based on many studies involving many children. It's been based on children from all walks of life regarding their experience with death. It's been based on actual children dealing with death. I think Hospice would have had a thousands upon thousands of experiences in that area, and have been able to see firsthand what children are able to understand/comprehend.

Edited September 19, 2009 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

it's not research into how kids "deal" with death, but rather their comprehension of death.

I imagine that when these kids, in particular, see rack of lamb on their plates, they comprehend death.

[Guest American Woman]

I imagine that when these kids, in particular, see rack of lamb on their plates, they comprehend death.

And I imagine that all the information in the world from people knowledgeable in this area isn't going to change what some people "imagine" and "think."

You want to make kids' comprehension of death a simple concept, but it's not. Yes, once they learn that the lamb on their plate used to be alive, they realize it's dead. That doesn't mean they have full comprehension of death; nowhere in the information I posted does it say that kids that age don't realize when something is "dead;" what it says is that they don't fully comprehend death, and that their comprehension is based on what they are able to grasp at different ages. In other words, realizing something is dead and comprehending all that it involves are two different things.

And having said that, I will no longer waste my time responding to what people "think" or "imagine."

[Guest American Woman]

I never disputed that. All I claimed is that we don't necessarily know that the reason for the lack of understanding is biological or environmental. I am skeptical on this point because I cannot see how any study could conclusively show it is primarily biological.

"Lack of understanding" and "inability to understand" are two different things. The first suggests that the child simply lacks the information needed to comprehend while the other is in regards to a child's inability to understand even if the information is repeated over and over.

Experience does enter into it, along with cognitive ability. That is true of everything a child learns. One can possess the ability to learn/comprehend something, but unless they are exposed to it, they will "lack" the understanding. But experience doesn't make up for inability to understand, either. You can give a child all the experiences in the world, but until they reach a certain age they will lack the ability to learn specifics until they reach a the age when they are cognitively able to grasp it. 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.

But note that the information I presented says children within the age groups learn at different rates; just as they do reading, writing, and arithmetic, which are all taught at 'age appropriate' levels based on cognitive ability in spite of the fact that environment plays a part in these areas, too.

Here is an anecdote that demonstrates why I don't defer to "experts" automatically when I have reason to doubt the claims.

I was talking with a climate scientist about the statistical problems with the iconic "hockey stick" graph. His response was basically, I don't understand the statistics but I trust the guy who did the study and will assume he did it right. His respond illustrates how experts tend to trust other experts and that it not reasonable to assume that one expert verifies the claims of another. What is more likely is they just accepted them as truth. That makes the second expert's claims nothing more than a opinion.

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

Furthermore, people who are educated in dealing with children regarding death and dying are generally educated in the research themselves. They aren't just going by what someone else says. I can't imagine a child psychologist, for example, not having studied the research. It makes no sense. Even I studied the research in my classes.

It all comes down to how the studies were done. What you can't seem to grasp is science is not some infalliable process that produces reliable results most of the time.

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. And of course, that's based on your 'disbelief' of the results/conclusions.

It is an extremely flawed process that tends to produce results that suit the preconceptions of the scientists doing the research. The only exception to this rule is when there are independently verifiable facts that support the conclusions.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would think someone would come up with the idea that children don't understand the irreversibility of death at specific ages and then set out to prove it. 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.'

In the case of a child's understanding of death I am asking what methodologies were used to draw the conclusions and what caveats go with those methodologies. It is quite possible that the actual scientific studies are a lot less certain than you claim but the uncertainties and caveats were let out by people quoting the conclusions.

And I'm telling you that this is something I've looked into myself, studied myself, and am not simply quoting experts. I'm also repeating that the studies themselves seem to only be available online only by purchase. Again, I did not gain my knowledge online.

But here's the thing: in having read several of your posts, 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.

Edited September 19, 2009 by American Woman