This topic contains 33 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by 
matilda 13 years, 7 months ago.
=So how am I assured that I am going to get an egg sandwich from the 2 percent of eggs laid by hens not kept in wire cages?=
Ask the cook to smell the eggs first. If they smell like galvanized wire, take a pass. [:p]
I should clarify. She was shown(?) to have pre-knowledge of an arson committed by ALF.
So far, I see arson.
quote:
Originally posted by matilda
Okay, I think I see your point. In this case, though, things seem to be reversed. The numbers should come to the good of the corporation. But, in the end, PETA has won the battle. Am I getting close?
Caving to PETA actually means an initial loss to the companies because of the increased costs. Of course, they eventually make it up by boosting prices. PETA doesn’t actually win anything, except in the eyes of its contributors, who usually are too clueless to realize they’re being taken by a woman named Ingrid Newkirk, the harridan who founded the organization and has made quite a lot of money as a result.
Okay, I think I see your point. In this case, though, things seem to be reversed. The numbers should come to the good of the corporation. But, in the end, PETA has won the battle. Am I getting close?
Yeah, maybe they should follow your sterling time management model by starting threads about convenience store chains and fast food breakfast…..
You guys have WAY too much time on your hands.
quote:
Originally posted by matilda
Well, Michael, I’m glad you bring out that point. I want to let you know that I am taking very seriously your pronouncements. You are generally a very even-keeled person and for you to be so vehement on a subject grabs my attention, ergo, I will research your stance. At the same time, you must respect my need for absolute understanding of such a volatile position. I would like to ask you, since you’ve mentioned it, how does the "gullible portion of the public" bring about "fear of economic consequences" in large corporations? Their hamburgers are already priced out of the market.
Those members of the public that pay heed to PETA’s ridiculous pronouncements amount to a considerable number of customers. If they participate in the boycotts threatened by PETA then there’s a problem with the bottom line.
Well, Michael, I’m glad you bring out that point. I want to let you know that I am taking very seriously your pronouncements. You are generally a very even-keeled person and for you to be so vehement on a subject grabs my attention, ergo, I will research your stance. At the same time, you must respect my need for absolute understanding of such a volatile position. I would like to ask you, since you’ve mentioned it, how does the "gullible portion of the public" bring about "fear of economic consequences" in large corporations? Their hamburgers are already priced out of the market.
quote:
Originally posted by matilda
[br
The consumer will then have to decide if they wish to support said company’s ideals by paying higher prices for the product they demand.[/quote]
I hate to have to be the one to point this out to you, but a company’s ideals have absolutely nothing to do with it. Companies that agree to play this game do so out of fear of economic consequences brought about by the gullible portion of the public and true believers in PETA’s advertsing campaigns and boycott threats.
quote:
Originally posted by Sheetzaholic
I fail to see collusion (PETA connection) or conspiracy (racket to raise prices) in the matter.
You fail to see the connection between PETA’s advertisements and boycotts and the caving in by the companies against whom the advertisements and boycotts are directed? Interesting.
Add bacon to that egg biscuit, please. (see above)
quote:
Originally posted by Sheetzaholic
Folks that are not interested in understanding/researching why an animal that is allowed to roam would have better health and therefore meat should become interested. The research is out there. Just as the facts may be there about PETA. Again, I think that an effort on the part of a corporation to steer away from shameful mass production of food (as if chickens were model t’s) is sensible. I fail to see collusion (PETA connection) or conspiracy (racket to raise prices) in the matter. Eat well live well. It’s good for humans and cluckers!
Please do not mistakenly perceive my statement pertaining to an increase in cost as a belief in some sort of conspiracy to make more money. What I meant was far from that. In order to follow these production methods, costs do rise. Period. There was no hint or allusion on my part to suggest a conspiracy for this company to make more money by raising prices. That’s just silly. Financially the costs of implementing these methods will be passed on to the consumer. The consumer will then have to decide if they wish to support said company’s ideals by paying higher prices for the product they demand. This in turn supports the movement. Those who are in favor of such measures on the part of the corporation in question will undoubtedly still buy, if not purchase more. Those who only care about the increased cost of an egg biscuit with no regard to how the animal came to be in their mouths will no longer patronize the establishment. And this in no way reflects on Michael’s ideas and reasons for boycott. His issues bring forth completely different sets of principle’s.
Folks that are not interested in understanding/researching why an animal that is allowed to roam would have better health and therefore meat should become interested. The research is out there. Just as the facts may be there about PETA. Again, I think that an effort on the part of a corporation to steer away from shameful mass production of food (as if chickens were model t’s) is sensible. I fail to see collusion (PETA connection) or conspiracy (racket to raise prices) in the matter. Eat well live well. It’s good for humans and cluckers!
quote:
Originally posted by pdxyyz
[br
Who says these animals are any healthier?????
They caved!!
[/quote]
So did Burger King.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.