The objection is obvious and very easy to understand; it tries to compare apples with oranges, and here you are trying to argue that they are both fruit.
"Apples and oranges" is a metaphor for things that shouldn't be compared. But that's just asserting that you can't compare two things without giving a reason. And I'm asking why not?
There are lots of statistics comparing deaths from different causes. Why not use them to make informed choices about risk?
> "Apples and oranges" is a metaphor for things that shouldn't be compared.
No it's a reference to comparisons that don't make sense.
You can compare as many apples you'd like with oranges, just as you can compare air travel with roadway traffic, but you'd be making absurd and meaningless comparisons.
There are lots of statistics comparing deaths from different causes. Why not use them to make informed choices about risk?