This was obviously an invalid test.:lol-sign:
Yep .. I'se a dummie!
Mad'sMom - It makes perfect sense that people will take offense to insinuations that they don't have compassion for animals, that hunting equals cruelty, that hunting to keep prey animals from starving is a myth, that those who choose to not eat meat are more intelligent, etc. While you may not have said directly that people who eat meat are terrible, you certainly hinted that they are and that those who don't eat meat are more kind and considerate.
The thought that vegetarians have a higher IQ is mildly amusing to me. First, I am not sure that is even accurate (certainly doesn't appear to be that way where I live). And - as someone else mentioned - I doubt that most of those people were RAISED as vegetarians. Their intelligence level had nothing to do with what they ate - becoming a vegetarian was most likely a choice they made as an adult. And who are we to say WHY they made that choice? It may be something as simple as not fitting into normal society (possibly because of their IQ's) and finding that being a vegetarian put them in a group where they could co-exist without having their IQ's be a factor. We have no way of knowing.
The terms "animal rights" and "animal welfare" have gained a certain definition in today's world, and "animal rights" is linked strongly with groups such as PETA. To choose to call yourself an animal rights activist will, logically, make people think you are a PETA type person. That's YOUR choice, of course. It may make a lot more sense to choose a different terminology in order to describe what you believe in, since you do think it's okay to own and use an animal. In all honesty, if we're going to look at the "rights" of animals, how can any animal rights activist say it's okay to own an animal (regardless of whether you want to think the animal is a member of your family or not, you DO own it)? Doesn't the animal have a right to choose where it wants to live and where it wants to go and what it wants to do? Isn't it wrong to tie/confine an animal, if you believe in animal rights? Isn't it wrong to spay or neuter or give vaccinations or feed pre-packaged foods? After all, an animal has a RIGHT to search for its own food.
So as you can see, the very term "animal rights" leads to all sorts of questions. It seems to me that if a person believes in animal rights *only to the point where it suits their interactions with their animals* then they're not an animal rights activist at all. They're simply someone who thinks that eating meat is wrong and hunting is wrong and using leather is wrong, but it's okay for THEM to own an animal and put a collar and leash on it. And, in the eyes of those who do eat meat, hunt, etc., that appears hypocritical.
It's a good thing to believe in treating animals humanely. It's a good thing to acknowledge what we're doing in the name of owning and training and using animals for our companions or as working animals. If not eating meat works for someone, then that's right for THEM. But to insinuate that others are not compassionate simply because they make other choices is always going to encourage some rancor - especially on a forum where the majority of people love their animals but do believe in eating meat.
Melanie and the gang in Alaska