Dave wrote:
> rick wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > rick wrote:
> > >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> > >> ups.com...
> > >> >
> > >> > rick wrote:
> > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> > >> >> oups.com...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > rick wrote:
> > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> > >> >> >> oups.com...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> snippage...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat
> > >> >> >> > then
> > >> >> >> > you
> > >> >> >> > have
> > >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce
> > >> >> >> > it
> > >> >> >> > as
> > >> >> >> > vegans do.
> > >> >> >> ======================
> > >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
> > >> >> >> industry.
> > >> >> >> I
> > >> >> >> buy
> > >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant
> > >> >> >> about.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something
> > >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition
> > >> >> > with
> > >> >> > each other to some degree.
> > >> >> ==========================
> > >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact
> > >> >> on
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> meat industry they spew about.
> > >> >
> > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They
> > >> > don't
> > >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike
> > >> > people
> > >> > who
> > >> > consume the cheapest meats available.
> > >> ============================
> > >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about.
> > >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate.
> > >
> > > Reduction is a type of change.
> > ===========================
> > You're missing the point.
>
> No it's you who are missing the point.

Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point


>
> > Since vegans do not and will not buy
> > meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do
> > participate, they have no impact.
>
> Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan.
> By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution
> towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind.

No. You are wrong.

First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a one-time
effect. Secondly, it was too small to be noticed. They removed their
demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing impact.

If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return to the
market for meat products, that too would be too small to be noticed.
"vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader vegetarian
community. As a percentage of the population, they are doubtless less
than one half of one percent.