Parents have that right. It might be a poor decision, but it’s their right, as opposed to schools making a lifestyle decision for them.
It’s important to separate the point about whether meat production is humane and its impact on the environment vs. how we talk to our children about it. I don’t have any problem communicating facts to these kids but I feel that “shock videos” are inappropriate at that age. Driving 100 MPH on the highway is dangerous but I don’t think schools should be showing 9-year-old kids videos of state police mopping up brains and guts after accidents.
The videos like this are not trying to persuade us to address the abominable acts; they are trying to persuade us, by showing us selected abominable acts, that the entire industry should be abolished.
I suspect we can easily head into the “No True Scotsman” territory here. Or perhaps my understanding of vegan in the context of this thread (e.g. diet) is insufficiently orthodox.
My opinion is no. Just as I wouldn’t have a pacifist there discussing nuclear war. 9 year olds are still in the phase where they’re just beginning to learn about food and nutrition. They should be focusing on the basics of nutrition and why a banana might be a better choice than a Reeses cup.
If my school is going to teach 9 year-olds anything about eating, it should be about balanced diets, avoiding junk foods, etc.
It’s perfectly fine for a nutritionist to point out that there are many ways to have a balanced diet with or without meat. I don’t believe that it’s any more necessary to drive the point home with a video of a slaughterhouse than it is for the fast food industry to put out videos of children suffering bloody diarrhea and dying from eating* e. coli* contaminated romaine lettuce.
I’ve seen many cooking shows that walk through the process of how an animal is selected to be butchered, transferred to the abattoir, and then its carcass is carved into pieces of meat. Generally, the slaughter and skinning isn’t shown, but they’ll sometimes show the rooms where it takes place and briefly explain the process. Jimmy’s Farm was one such show. Jimmy's Farm - Wikipedia
I’ve also seen militant vegan protestors carrying signs with pictures of half-skinned animals. When I hear that a vegan activist showed a shock video depicting an abattoir, that’s the sort of image that comes to mind. And I wouldn’t want those images shown to a nine year old, especially without parental approval.
Hm, who vets the speakers? What if a speaker from a white supremisist group wanted to teach? or another such offensive group? Who decides whats appropriate?
Most people’s understanding of our food systems, their impacts on the environment, and the moral questions (and conclusions) that might or might arise from looking at those systems through certain lenses and filters is so flawed and fragmented that having a “vegan activist” as an invited guest to a classroom of grade-school kids is obviously poor pedagogy.
Not because that activist is necessarily wrong, but because they are likely presenting a narrow view of a complicated issue not to educate, but in order to promote specific behaviors that are not necessarily in line with the goals of the school. And any facts presented are likely not vetted or checked in any way, or provided with relevant context.
I’m comfortable assuming my point of view is partly due to confirmation bias and partly due to small numbers. I’ve met/interacted with a few (<12) vegans and they’ve all been wacky.
Exactly- veganism is (AFAIK) more of a social/political statement and/or form of activism, not a simple lifestyle choice, like garden-variety vegetarianism.
It’s not so much that I don’t think 9 year olds can handle it (although I don’t think most are well-equipped), but rather that this activist is basically taking the educational legitimacy and authority (i.e. what we teach is true and accurate), and cloaking his own personal worldviews in it. So your average 9 year old might see this guy’s presentation and assume that, because it was a school presentation and not followed up by some sort of critical thinking exercise and/or opposing viewpoint, that it is more legitimate than it is.
To use an analogy, would we be cool if a 2nd Amendment activist gave a talk at a school talking about how gun ownership prevents crime, helps us defend our homes, etc…? This is the exact same thing, just on a different topic.
My sample size is smaller, though there are family relations in two cases. I’m happy to climb down from coming across as being in a position of authority on the subject.
Depends. There are two kinds of atheists. If I had a kid at a Catholic school #1 might be OK, #2 would not.
Some people take it on faith that there is a God, but others like me see no objective evidence that God exists, we we don’t share that faith. There are many arguments that try to prove that God exists but they do not follow the rules of logic. If you have faith, then it’s a personal choice, just as it is to not have faith.
I don’t believe in your god and anybody who does is an irrational idiot. Religion has perpetrated more violence on mankind in the name of gods than any other cause. Religion is a blight on humanity.
