4 ms·
The phrase "There are alternative options such as non-animal fats and hydrocarbon waxes, but these might increase the cost of production, reduce efficiency, aff
by tbalsam 4y ago
The phrase "There are alternative options such as non-animal fats and hydrocarbon waxes, but these might increase the cost of production, reduce efficiency, affect recyclability and finally negatively affect the environment."....
....is such a semi-randomly grab-bagged set of statements similar to a set of nigh-unverifiable closing statements made as a desperate last-ditch attempt at proving a point in a debate that I feel it significantly weakens the article's stance, not strengthens it.
For example, with people with religious and moral objections to using animal products along governmentally-supervised transactional lines, whataboutism involving other parts of the supply chain/where animal products are used don't really serve to prove the point -- again. In turn, if we were to use this bit of what I'd consider to be somewhat faulty logic, the bank notes could be used as leverage in the future as the example in a list of products that uses animal products, just as other items in that list are being used as leverage today.
As for my position -- sometimes I eat meat, sometimes I don't, but I'd like to please avoid flesh in my money, however miniscule.
- flandish 4y agoAnything from a corporation saying “fearful” (for your wallet) things like “may cost more to produce(costing you more)” or reduce efficiency (costing you more) etc… Is just reworded excuses as to the corporation’s choosing profit. For they will never say “profit us less.”
- dwighttk 4y agoI dunno… it isn’t always a sliding scale… sometimes a change actually switches a product to too expensive to sell.
- WalterBright 4y agoCorporations can choose: 1. making a profit 2. going out of business If you raise the cost of doing business for a corporation, the cost of their products and services is going to rise accordingly.
- flandish 4y agoThis is assuming we treat profit as immutable. Which is, I suppose, “rule one” in business, no? And in most cases - hey that’s fine. I disagree but it’s ok. One area where I will always push back is on services that are required for life. Food. Shelter. Power (electric, etc) … healthcare. If the service is critical, profit should be considered last, if at all. (As I write this, my elec provider has doubled its generation rate this month… yet making tons of profit for its shareholders…)
- WalterBright 4y agoAs history shows us, agriculture for profit is far cheaper and more effective than collective farms. The same with healthcare.
- drtz 4y ago> As history shows us, agriculture for profit is far cheaper and more effective than collective farms. I doubt the accuracy of this statement. But I'll make a largely-unsubstantiated claim of my own, nonetheless: for-profit agriculture has substantially increased the cost of for-profit healthcare by focusing on high-profit foods that are highly processed and addictive instead of foods that are actually good for us to consume.
- WalterBright 4y ago> I doubt the accuracy of this statement Spend 5 minutes researching it with google what happens with collective farms. > for-profit agriculture has substantially increased the cost of for-profit healthcare by focusing on high-profit foods that are highly processed and addictive instead of foods that are actually good for us to consume People vote with their dollars what they want to eat. Besides, if you do google the history of collective farms, the result in every case was famine, not breaking out in health.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago