I haven't checked lately, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think our human rights (as itemised by the UN) include an exemption from our natural place in the food chain. Last time a human was taken as a tasty morsel by a shark or a crocodile, I don't think those creatures were brought before any human rights tribunal, and I don't think there were too many people crying about that person's rights being violated.

Cattle are part of our food chain. They are primary consumers and we are secondary consumers. In short, we eat cattle because that's what humans do. Snakes eat mice, eagles eat rabbits, spiders eat flies and we eat cattle. I'm sure if it occurred to other creatures to act in a humane way, and if other creatures were blessed with that sense of guilt (perhaps you're right - squeamishness) that we feel, they would despatch their meals in as kind a manner as possible. Perhaps they actually do. What we do know is that humans are equipped with consciences and also with the capacity to kill creatures as humanely as possible. The combination of the two allows us to retain our place in the food chain without needing to feel guilty about it. It also allows us to press for animal rights without being hypocrites (though some of us still have a way to go on that count).

Well, when you look at all of where we evolved from, meat was the primary score for any hunter......so tell me again why its all changed?
Hypocrites are best served with gravy and spuds:)

LEAP

Is the author's argument that because we eat animals it gives us the right to treat them cruelly?

Humans consume animals but we have a conscience and can choose to inflict minimal suffering and pain in pursuit of food.

As for the choice of hitting or killing a human and which is worse. We don't eat humans. The choice will not arise as far as whether it is better to punch a human or kill him for food.

I am unsure of the author's argument - it does not make sense.

You know, I could probably explain the threshhold most meat-eaters hold in that they have no qualms about eating an animal that only exists as a food item if it were killed by stunning, bleeding and decapitation in that order, with comparatively less pain, than eating something that was probably tortured or had lived in squalid, painful conditions during its life- against a free-range animal that got tricked into walking into an abattoir and got a surprise crack over the head.

Similarly, some people are happy to eat farmed meats, but do not want to eat whale because whales are endangered and it upsets the ecosystem.

Or even culturally, some people prefer to only eat certain animals (nobody growing up in Australia would want to eat a dog or cat, but nobody has a qualm if people in east-asia do breed them for food.
Naturally of course we wouldn't want to export our kitties and puppies over there, because it's against our beliefs, so we simply don't.

Or then again, I could not waste my time explaining people's personal thresholds to someone who really doesn't actually want me to tell them

*There are only two intellectually honest and consistent positions to take on animal rights*

Not really John, this is where I think that you are confused. If
you are dead, you don't know that you are dead, so it hardly matters.
But if you are alive and suffering, then you are aware of it and
suffering clearly does matter to you.

So it is a quite moral and intellectually honest position to take,
to minimise suffering of both people and other species.

In fact those who we torture most, much to our shame, is our very
own species. We keep them alive, as they gasp for their last
breath. We deny them the right to euthanasia, even when they reckon
that all that suffering does not make life worth living.

Fact is, there is no good reason to make animals suffer, so what
moral position makes you think that you should?

Perhaps you need to rethink your philosophies.

Human societies are at different levels in different parts of the world. There are cultures in India that are pure vegetarians and their history shows they have always been that way. There are cultures that practice dog eating and cannibalism even today. These cultures slowly change and people move from one culture to another. It is not all one consciousness in the world.

This argument that cattle are bred to be eaten makes no more sense than the southern farmers in the USA in 1860 saying that nigers were bred to be slaves. Yes, they were bred for that purpose but that does not mean it is a correct purpose.

The Australian society is at a level where the majority will not remain silent about the animals that are born here being sent overseas to be tortured to death in the name of profit. Those people being paid to secure markets for the cattle breeders did a poor job of securing the markets and now they are lost. The cattle will still be sold domestically. If the price goes down just add a tax and use the proceeds to help those poor cattle breeders find a new industry to work in.