I’m helping out at the local high school. The speech teacher had emergency back surgery, and the Principal was desperate…so here I am.
“Enlightening” is an understatment! These young people were born after the USSR ceased to exist (and most didn’t even know what the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was!). They had never heard of Joseph Stalin. They had never heard the word “jargon.” Many did not know what the word “informal” meant.
The last speech these students gave was “informative.” Topics included school violence, animal rights, abortion, addiction, gun control, identity theft, teen suicide and a host of others. I used my first day conversing with the students about various things, including that last speech.
Without exception, even though the speech was meant to be informative only, the students who gave the animal rights speech thought that animals should have rights.
One girl said that she does not eat red meat (a decision she came to a week or two ago), because she found out that cows are raped. They are artificially inseminated. That is not natural. Those animals should not be bred if they do not want to be.
One girl said that animals should have rights because they should not be used for testing.
Another (girl!) said that she read about two elephants being stabbed and beaten, and therefore they should have rights.
The students use a book that must stay in the classroom to “develop” their subject. Not one student (from my informal survey) actually used the Net to research.
“Animal Rights” by Charles Patterson is THE book in this classroom on animal rights. It’s the book that is to be referenced in the “credibility” statement in the speech. “It’s radical” is an understatement.
I console myself with the knowledge that most of the students are so numb from boredom that almost nothing is sticking.
At the beginning of each second period, via intercom, all students are led in a pledge to the U.S. flag and another pledge to the Texas flag.
“What happens if Texas secedes?” I asked this morning.
“Oh, we don’t really believe what we’re saying. We just say it because we have to.”
In other words, the students are just going through the motions.
Thank the Lord for small mercies.
iloveag 
I have been asked if I responded at all, or whether I just played the role of dead-beat substitute.
That makes me smile a lot.
I have grave concerns over telling people what to think. I want to help teach young people to think for themselves…to completely think through all the implications of their position. The best way I have found to do this is to ask questions.
“If you support animal rights, are you opposed to having pets?”
“Are you opposed to riding horses?”
“Are you opposed to eating meat, fish, milk, eggs, cheese, yogurt, butter and ice cream?”
“Do you think that plants want to be cut down in the prime of their life?” Surely someone should speak for the plants. Who will be THEIR voice?
Even though it’s exhausting, I’m enjoying the interaction with students immensely. They are great young people. They are not opposed to using their minds. It seems that it’s just not expected very often.
Currently I am putting together a speech on animal rights, thus I’ve landed on this posting. In response to your list of questions in contrast to supporting animal rights I have a statement. Regardless of the true definition of “animal rights” or what it means from one person to another; My stance is that I don’t believe “any” living being deserves to be tortured. As a child I lived in poverty, we hunted to eat. Never did my father torture (poke, stab, choke) the deer’s that we killed, we aimed for a straight death shot, if that wasn’t achieved, it happened shortly after. To me, eating animals, just as animals eat other animals, is the way of life. I do not care about how our species survived 10 million years ago, which seems to be an argument that we did not eat animals in the “beginning”. People die, animals die, it is how our world works. I am not against eating an animal, or keeping one as a pet/ companion. I am against torturing an animal. Scalding a chicken alive, or killing piglets by holding onto their legs and smashing their head into a concrete floor. Filling a chickens body with growth hormones to the point that their legs crumble under their own weight. This is not natural, it is not necessary, there are other ways that we can live without the ridiculous pain we endue to other creatures. I can go on with other topics but I’m sure it would result in my rambling. Thanks for reading if you did make it to the end.
Jessica, I agree with you on the majority of what you posted. Beware the animal rights activists, however, as they would not. If animals are granted rights equal to humans, then they could not be owned or eaten or used for research or as beasts of burden. The slippery slope awaits us if we grant animals rights.
Thanks very much for your considered response!
🙂 iloveag