If you drive a car to work, you know with statistical certainty that your presence on the road contributes to the probability of a fatal accident. By your definition, you are ‘intentionally’ killing someone every time you get behind the wheel, regardless of whether you are a safe driver or a reckless one.
this is a terrible analogy. we know that clearing a certain number of acres during harvest kills a certain number of animals. regardless of the ratio or number, it is non-zero. most people drive without ever being involved in a fatal crash.
The car analogy was about the distinction between intentional killing and unintended risk. You are now trying to make this about the statistical frequency of death to avoid the moral reality of your choices.
But if you want to use ‘crop deaths’ as your yardstick, you are concerned about animals killed during harvest, however, livestock consume vastly more grain and soy than humans do. Every time you eat a burger, you are demanding the harvest of more crops than if you had simply eaten the plants yourself. If you are worried about the ‘non-zero’ number of animal deaths during harvest, then by eating meat, you are directly increasing that number.
this is a terrible analogy. we know that clearing a certain number of acres during harvest kills a certain number of animals. regardless of the ratio or number, it is non-zero. most people drive without ever being involved in a fatal crash.
The car analogy was about the distinction between intentional killing and unintended risk. You are now trying to make this about the statistical frequency of death to avoid the moral reality of your choices.
But if you want to use ‘crop deaths’ as your yardstick, you are concerned about animals killed during harvest, however, livestock consume vastly more grain and soy than humans do. Every time you eat a burger, you are demanding the harvest of more crops than if you had simply eaten the plants yourself. If you are worried about the ‘non-zero’ number of animal deaths during harvest, then by eating meat, you are directly increasing that number.
only when i’m trying to point out to people that argue against animal deaths for food
i can easily concede that your argument from analogy was a bad one.
no i’m not.
no, i’m not.
humans eat about 2/3 of global crop calories, so this just isn’t true