At typical driving rates, over a lifetime of driving, the average American motorist will kill 0.006 to 0.01 people in collisions with pedestrians (not counting cyclists). Put another way, every 1,000 miles an American drives imposes about 12 micromorts of death on pedestrians from collisions alone.
okay. now what? If you have a point to make, I suggest you just come out and make it and stop talking around your point. Otherwise you waste both of our time. "Animal abuse" isn't the name of a specific crime and most forms of animal abuse ARE NOT CRIMES.
Canada has some of the weakest animal protection laws in the Western world. Animals are property with no rights. The protections that exist are mere lip-service. Prosecutions are extremely rare and most forms of cruelty that people commonly practice are perfectly legal.
You can place an animal in the open back of a truck in -30C weather and ship them 1,000km, knowing the whole time that the animal will arrive dead, and it is not a crime. No one will bat an eye because it happens THOUSANDS of times a year here in Canada.
You can take a perfectly healthy and happy animal, and stab it right in the throat, because you want the meat, or because you like stabbing animals, and it is not a crime. This also happens many thousands of times a year here in Canada.
Certain animals (mainly pets) have very limited protection against abuse, but those laws do not protect the life of the animal or protect the animal from needless suffering, cruelty, or violence. Factory farming exceeds these protections routinely, but the law is set up in many provinces to make reporting these crimes effectively itself a crime.
Because while euthanasia is generally a good thing, there are also big potentials for abuse and unnecessary tragedy. We maintain a pretense of caring about these things with humans and so most governments err on the side of caution while others think they're such hot shit they can dance their way through the quagmire. Meanwhile, we openly don't give a single fuck what happens to non-human animals, and our culture is predicated on treating them like objects, so you're allowed to do whatever you want with them. Kill them because they're suffering, kill them because they bark too loud, it's all the same. It's your dog-shaped object, go nuts.
The scope of work failing to cover the necessary work discovered by billions of dollars is still pretty fucking serious no matter how you do the accounting. If Lecce and Ford had come out and said, "Folks, we did our best, but this project is gonna cost another 3 billion beyond estimates," it would have been a lot more honest than saying it was 150 million under-budget. The scope of work isn't important, the actual results and actual requirements are.
They also didn't count the water required to manufacture the car. You might argue that a strict usage analysis doesn't cover full lifecycle, but clearly this wasn't intended to be lifecycle analysis for either case, so it still compares meaningfully.
oh yeah it's so much better to demonize an almost totally unrelated population who typically don't even commit sex crimes. It's way better to stigmatize a medical condition that people had no control over, no matter how they actually behave. You sure nipped that problem in the bud, UH-HUH!
Just fucking say child molester. Actual pedophiles are no more likely to commit sex crimes than the general population are.
At typical driving rates, over a lifetime of driving, the average American motorist will kill 0.006 to 0.01 people in collisions with pedestrians (not counting cyclists). Put another way, every 1,000 miles an American drives imposes about 12 micromorts of death on pedestrians from collisions alone.