Agreed. It seems humans use a semantic loop hole as an excuse for the absolutely horrific way animals are treated. We say if the animal meets our criteria for "sentient" then it would qualify for a different type of treatment. How can we prove an animal is perceiving subjectively? It's subjective.

We say it's not sentient so its ok to keep it in a tiny cage, laying in it's own shit 24/7 for months until it's fat enough to have it's head sawn off. Or skinning it alive to use it's fur for a pair of boots. Or boiled alive. Etc.etc. Killing it is the most humane treatment it ever receives.

How about this? If I take a sharp object and stick it into the side of my cat or any animal it will recoil in pain. Why isn't the fact that it's alive and can feel pain/suffer enough to warrant empathy and decent treatment? For example, not to be abused, tortured and killed for sport. Animals suffer. That's enough for me to do my best to make sure they don't suffer because of me.

This isn't a vegan rant. Eat what you want. Can't we simply decide that abuse of any living creature is unacceptable regardless of what term we use to define it?