Let's say a child reads something online or a book in the library and comes up with the belief that "meat is murder" and is constantly calling other children "murderers" if they eat meat.
While not condoning this opinion (I'm not a vegetarian but I was for a short time as a kid after reading a library book promoting animal rights) the ability to experience and express moral outrage is a positive thing.
So the child should be told simply that while they are entitled to their opinions and their feelings that telling calling other students "murderers" for eating meat is not appropriate. The child is likely to have seen videos or pictures of protesters saying those things so the distinction should be made that the young children aren't mature enough to be expected to handle that rhetoric.
Why do I bring this up? Because this is in stark contrast to the reasons people usually cite for why children bully. Insecurity issues, abuse at home are not involved in this example. Parental influence isn't even involved, the child learns from books at the library or the internet.
The argument that says yes to this statement is entirely flawed and unsupported. It is airy and flamboyant and the only thing it has going for it is that it talks about meat. Bacon is awesome, and always will be. To propose that someone will rebel against bacon and lash out against their peers is a silly, if not childish premise.