Nothing humane happens in a slaughterhouse according to animal activists. At least, nothing according to their definition of 'humane'.

It's a nice try, but it doesn't fly. Nothing completely humane is meant to happen in a slaughterhouse. Killing animals to feed humans is the intended purpose of those establishments.

This cunning statement uses the term 'humane' in an absolute sense. Viewed in perspective, that's nonsense. Very little that's truly absolute takes place on planet Earth. In human perception, almost everything is relative to something else.

This statement amounts to a value judgement masquerading as fact. In essence, 'humane' is an adjective, so it's purely an evaluation. In other words, it's a matter of opinion.

Humanism comes in varying degrees. The practices taking place in some slaughterhouses are far more humane than those found in others. Minimum standards are set for humane slaughter of animals in advanced nations. People who think that's rubbish because they personally regard the slaughter of animals for human food as inhumane by definition are welcome to their opinions. But, there isn't a single good reason why the rest of us should should agree with them.

Planet Earth is a gigantic slaughterhouse in which billions upon billions of creatures consume others to stay alive. Humans at least have the decency to kill their food first. The rest of the animal kingdom isn't that considerate in the way they go about satisfying their appetite. A great deal of prey gets eaten alive.

What I find bizarre is that animal activists can somehow close their minds to the permanently occurring slaughter carried out by wildlife, yet suffer emotional meltdown at the thought of humans doing the same thing in a far less cruel fashion.

They may claim that cattle in a pen waiting to be killed are distressed because they sense impending doom. Perhaps so, but a gazelle trying to outrun a lion would experience similar trauma. Regardless, we are entitled to suspect that even if animals were unconscious throughout the entire process, the discussion wouldn't end there, anyway.

These people consider that their own prick of conscience and their own responses to visual media should represent the standard for the whole of humanity. They cannot produce a shred of proof as to why that ought to be so.

Perhaps one day they will succeed at eliminating the slaughter of animals for food. If they do, then so be it. I personally won't suffer much distress if the world does move in that direction. I will simply move with it. I would much rather vegan than Soylent Green. My gripe is that if you have a fair argument to make, you shouldn't need dodgy logic and tricks of perception to get your case across.

Photo by Juliana Romão on Unsplash