"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote
>
>>>> ==========================
>>>> Because it is still beef consumers that are buying it.
>>>> Overall beef demand doesn't change, just the producers.
>>>
>>> And to a person concerned with animal welfare and/or
>>> collateral deaths that is a significant fact.
>> ========================
>> It should be, but vegans, who claim to care, don't have any
>> impact on this change at all.
>
> Why would they? That makes no sense. They don't consume ANY
> beef, therefore they have the same impact on factory-farmed
> *and* free-range, they contribute NADA towards it, which is
> what they should do if they feel both are wrong. It's ludicrous
> to suggest that they should buy free-range meat, why would
> they?
=============================
I don't care if they do or not. It's their claim that they care
for animals and want to do something to end 'factory-farmed'
beef. Not buying a product that they didn't buy anyway does
nothing to effect that change. On the other hand, purchasing
grass-fed does do something to end 'factory-farmed' beef.



>
>>>>>> The beef is produced differently,
>>>>>>> usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses
>>>>>>> different inputs, and costs more.
>>>>>> ======================
>>>>>> And, it is still beef. raised the same way for almost all
>>>>>> their lives, and by the same people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if the same people produce it, it is a different
>>>>> process and therefore a separate product.
>>>> ====================
>>>> No, it is still beef, consumed by the same people. If it
>>>> magically found new buyers of beef that never ate beef
>>>> before, then you'd be onto something. As it is, it's just a
>>>> different marketing scheme that still produces beef.
>>>
>>> The relevant issues here that you are glossing over is that
>>> traditionally farmed and free-grazed meat is different in
>>> cd-content and different in animal welfare, not to mention
>>> healthier.
>> =================================
>> No, I'm not glossing over it at all. Those are exactly the
>> reasons that a vegan that really cares about stopping the meat
>> industry they don't like should take note.
>
> What do you mean by "take note"?
===========================
That their claim to want to end 'factory-farmed' beef is empty
air unless they do something to encourage those changes.



>
>> As it is, the vegans here have no impact on that change at
>> all.
>
> They can argue against "factory-farming" and encourage
> meat-eaters to choose free-range. In fact that's exactly what
> many are doing, and it does have some effect.
===========================
And, that works to a point, except that they themselves are doing
nothing to reduce their impact. That's about all vegans here
seem to do, lip service.


>
>> The fact that they both are beef
>>> is beside the point. One compares favorably against vegan
>>> foods according to the very criteria vegans put forth, the
>>> other does not.
>> ==========================
>> There are vegan foods that would not compare favorably to any
>> meat production.
>
> I suppose that's possible, but the point here is that
> traditional finished beef and free-range unfinished are two
> different meat products, and it's absurd to suggest that vegans
> are somehow not doing anything to impact meat production
> because they don't buy free range meat. You almost sound like
> ****wit, criticizing vegans for not "providing life".
=========================
Hardly. I'm saying that they have NO impact on beef production
at ALL. They are already non-consumers. They have no impact on
demand, supply, or method of production. Again, I don't care if
they buy grass-fed or not, I already know their hypocrisy is
paramount to the religion. But, if they themselves, personally,
want to do something to reduce demand for 'factory-farmed' beef,
then the only way they can accomplish that is to increase demand
for the alternative.



>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Economically it has the exact same effect on producers
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the old product as if those consumers had become vegans,
>>>>>>> it takes market share away from the old-style producers.
>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>> That's the incentive to produce an alternative that
>>>>>> grass-fed beef produces. Vegans produce no such
>>>>>> incentive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody says they do. The effect they have is to withdraw
>>>>> economic support for traditionally produced meat products
>>>>> (aka "Factory Farmed"), which is the same effect that
>>>>> people who consume alternative products like free-range
>>>>> organic have.
>>>> ===========================
>>>> They are not withdrawing ant support for a product, that's
>>>> the point. They are already non-purchasers of the product,
>>>> and have no impact on the market at all.
>>>
>>> You have made this comment repeatedly and it's not relevant.
>>> Non-consumption of a particular product has the same negative
>>> value and moral implications (assuming there are any)
>>> regardless of the past history of a consumer.
>> ================================
>> And your continued saying that it does doesn't mean it is so
>> either. Non-consumption by the vegans here have no impact on
>> the demand for either types of beef.
>
> Yes it does. If you count every consumer, and you should, then
> the average demand per capita of meat drops when each vegan is
> counted.
==============================
Again, potential doen't make demand. Vegans are already out of
the demand/supply for beef. If you think that producers are
creating product for a 'potential' demand, then there should be
such a glut of products here waiting for the billion chinese
market to be wide open. Now THERE is a a potential market!



>
>>>>>> I'm talking about what the vegans here can do to change a
>>>>>> process they dislike.
>>>>>
>>>>> They simply don't support it, which is I do by buying free
>>>>> range.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not discussing the delusion that suddenly everyone
>>>>>> goes vegan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is talking about "everybody", the fact is,
>>>>> free-range, grass-fed and vegan alternatives all have the
>>>>> same negative effect on "Factory Farmed".
>>>> ==============================
>>>> No, they do not. The first two do, because they are already
>>>> consumers of beef. vegans are not, and have not been.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. The "factory farm" meat industry is only directly
>>> *changed* when enough people *stop* consuming their products,
>>> regardless of what they choose as an alternative, BUT each
>>> consumer who chooses to NOT support those products has a
>>> measurable impact in a market analysis.
>> ============================
>> No, they do not.
>
> Yes they do.
> ========================
Nope. Only their buying habits have an impact on the market.



>> The vegans here are already non-consumers.
>
> Then their consumption didn't change, but they're still
> consumers. If your consumption stays the same your consumption
> level still counts towards the average.
=========================
No, they are non-consumers. They already are out of the loop of
supply/demand for beef.



>
>> They have no impact on the market for beef.
>
> They do not CONSUME any beef, that in itself is an impact. All
> you need do is multiply any consumer habit by one million to
> make it clear that each consumer habit counts. If a heavy meat
> eater eats 3 lbs a day, and you multiply that number by a
> million, the meat producers would have to increase production.
> The reverse is true for a million vegans, production would have
> to less, meaning fewer animals.
=======================================
Only in a delusional dream that sudeenly a million more people
went vegan. I'm discussing what I and the vegans here on usenet
can do personally, not what-ifs. They are already not buying
beef. The supply demand cares nothings about a dream.





Every consumer choice has a theoretical and
> an actual impact, even when, or *especially when* that choice
> is to NOT consume a particular product.
=========================
No, not a all. They are already not involved in the
supply/demand cycle for that product.


>
>> Producers are not out there making products on the off chance
>> that I have the potential to buy them. I contribute to no
>> demand, and producers provide no supply.
>
> No, they make LESS meat than they would otherwise, which is
> exactly the effect that vegans are aiming for.
=======================
LOL Not they do not. They produce supply for what the real
demand is. They consider nothing about about what has never
happened before.


>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> The only difference is that vegans
>>>>>>> do not "support" the new product, which makes no
>>>>>>> difference to the old producers.
>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>> Vegans have had no impact to begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every consumer has a theoretical impact. Quitting or
>>>>> abstaining, the impact per consumer is the same.
>>>> =============================
>>>> No, it is not. 'Potential' doesn't make demand.
>>>
>>> By consuming alternative products a consumer sets their
>>> demand to zero for every product they do not consume. That is
>>> all I do by not buying factory farmed meat.
>> ========================
>> No, you still cause a demand for beef.
>
> A DIFFERENT BEEF PRODUCT, which is the whole point.
===========================
No, it is not, to both claims. It is still beef, and the demand
is still there. You gave producers an alternative to produce
beef in a different manner. And by doing so, you decreased
demand for 'factory-farmed' beef. That is exactly what vegans
would do if they purchased garss-fed beef.


>
> Changing from "factory-farmed" to a different beef product is
> analagous to changing from free-range meat to vegetarian.
>
>> The demand for beef didn't change, just the production method.
>
> THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.
====================
Exactly. And vegans have nothing to do with that change. At
least you're getting close!


>
>> The vegans here have no demand for either, and effect the
>> supply of neither.
>
> You don't even know that, not that it's relevant.
========================
LOL Yes, I do. the have no input on the supply/demand for beef.

>
>
>>>>>> Again, I'm not talking about some delusion that suddenly
>>>>>> everyone becomes vegan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is.
>>>> ===============
>>>> That's the omnly way that your claim works.
>>>
>>> It works the same in theory for each consumer, and in reality
>>> at each threshold of consumers who change to other products.
>> ===========================
>> The vegans here are not changeing to other products. They are
>> already nonconsumers of beef. As such, they have no impact on
>> the production meathods, demand, or supply of either type.
>
> I thought you were smarter than this rick, maybe you need a
> break. ==============================
I thought the same of you. You join the crazy-lady in Toronto
and start smokin weed, did you?


>