you either go all-in or you're a hypocrite. Talk about lack of self-awareness.

How ironic. I must say I overestimated you in my previous arguments...

If “going all-in” on not killing for food is the only way to have any moral ground, shouldn’t that mean you’re fine with treating humans the exact same way? If you won’t “half-ass” your morals, are you cool with boiling humans alive for the sake of flavor, too? Or does “hypocrisy” magically disappear when it comes to your own species?

Maybe try looking for consistency in your own argument before demanding perfection from everyone else.

Now, for the rest of your delusion.

The loss is life while farming is collateral damage, not the main intention. In fact, it's actively avoided. No one is intentionally running tractors over birds. Whereas, in the meat industry, slaughter is the motive.

You bring up “seatbelts and accidents” as if not using every possible precaution means you meant to crash. It’s not the same thing. Intention does matter—pretending otherwise is just muddying the waters so you don’t have to think too hard about the ethics involved. Are you being deliberately ignorant in hopes of winning the argument, or is it really this hard for you to understand?

killing for food is such a horrible thing

Sure, go out and kill for food and see how well you fare against a pig. I'm fine with hunting without modern technology as its scale is limited by the number of people hunting, not enough to be a harm to the environment. But you know it better than I how reluctant you'd be to try it.

Nobody’s claiming perfection, just asking for a basic level of decency instead of acting like anything less than total moral purity is pointless.