Again. Causing incidental harm by existing in modern society is unavoidable. Just because birds might die to a windmill doesn't mean using electricity is equivalent to choosing to breed, raise and slaughter birds for taste pleasure.

You're arguing that because toxins might leak from some computer component, you may as well stab puppies in the neck for the yum yums.

Around 80 billion animals are murdered every year, participation of which is perfectly avoidable by not buying their dead bodies. That's not even counting the billions more killed from habitat loss. Animal agriculture is by far the largest driver of species extinction. 80% of Amazon deforestation is from cattle farming. That's true "Massive amounts of destruction and death for the animals in that wake".

"While it is true that some birds die every year by flying into turbine towers or blades, the actual numbers are negligible." https://us.orsted.com/renewable-energy-solutions/offshore-wind/seven-facts-about-offshore-wind/birds

Also, I don't see why we can't work to reduce such incidental harms where we are able.

Killing animals for taste pleasure is morally equal to not killing animals for taste pleasure.

It is a privilege to not eat dead bodies for taste pleasure.

Suffering will always exist so it's okay to kill animals for taste pleasure.

Farming potatoes isn't inherently ethical so its morally equal to stabbing baby goats in the throat because their dead bodies taste nice..

That's a fantastic set of arguments you've collected. In my opinion.

Yeah but not one that matters. Both sentient and sapient beings feel pain and don't want to die.

Because you don't have to stab an animal to play a video game? At this point I don't think you're taking this seriously. And if you are ... if you had to stab an animal to play a video game then you shouldn't play that game.

Can you understand the difference between causing incidental harm by existing in modern society, and stabbing someone in the throat for taste pleasure?

Uh no it would cause millions if not billions of people to die from exposure and hunger.

If you're getting pleasure from some activity that requires stabbing someone else in the throat then yes, obviously, you should also stop.

Yes, it is immoral to cause unnecessary intentional and easily avoidable harm. This should be obvious.

Arguing that eating plants causes comparable deaths or suffering to eating animals demonstrates how detached you are from the reality of 'food' production.

It's not comparable. One choice minimizes suffering, the other maximizes harm.

Abandoning cities and returning to living in huts would obviously cause considerable harm combined with how impracticable it would be.

Not eating animals is very easy and also greatly reduces unnecessary suffering.

Also i love how suggesting to not stab innocent animals in the throat is somehow comparable to abandoning modern living. Touch some grass.

Causing harm for no reason but your own pleasure is the definition of immoral behavior.