Okay, let's play the quote and answer game. My formatting game is shit, just a warning.
"For the time being at least, it isn't about replacing, just reducing. Replacing is a long term thing, and this is pretty much step one in that respect."
Reducing what? You can reduce meat purchases by just not buying meat, you literally don't have to buy any alternatives. In fact, you can create negative demand, by taking a frozen or refrigerated meat item in a grocery store and placing it somewhere where it's no longer refrigerated. I'm not telling you that you should do this, but I'm also not specifically stating that I actively do this, if you get my drift.
"Getting people who are non-vegans to buy these alternatives instead of the real meat when they go to these restaurants works too. Doesn't just have to be vegans.
Many people understand that veganism is an ethical option, it's just that they can't see themselves doing it. With these alternatives, that shows people that it is possible, and is gradually becoming easier."
What omnis do has nothing to do with the goal of veganism, but buying alternatives from the animal murderers themselves doesn't NOT fund the animal murdering endeavor.
Take Field Roast/Lightlife/Chao for instance, they're owned by Maple Leaf Foods.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/428105 ... all-slides
Here's a slideshow on their quarterly earnings, and if you peruse through it further, you'll see that their intentions with Field Roast and such, is to fund more animal murder houses, so-to-speak.
Let's quote that prompt for a moment here: "we believe the drivers of growth will be protein consumption and diversification; not material substitution" "sustainable meat continued to grow at double-digits"
This isn't a sign of plant-based alternatives shrinking the meat industry, it's actually growing. The slides also show $660M spent on new poultry options and $406M on PB overall for two new facilities.
"...I do, it's just that that's not a realistic prospect for many companies that do make vegan food at the moment. That's why we need these mock meats by these fast food companies to get that started, as I said. It's not going to happen overnight (and if it did, that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing).
I should add only buying from vegan companies doesn't help market signals significantly since they make up a tiny part of the economy (you should still buy from them of course). Fast food giants such as McDolans or Wendy's would make a much more significant shift.
Also, the bigger companies have more money to invest, so their products will taste more like the real thing."
Funding non-vegan companies makes the non-vegan companies bigger, funding actual vegan companies gives them a better chance at becoming bigger, so they can do more. You don't offer alternatives alongside meat, that's for getting people who wouldn't normally buy your product to buy it moving forward. Vegan companies aren't involved in that. All these fast food megacorps factor the plant-based items into their regular fiscal quarters and that ends up funding a new McDonalds in a place where they're likely to get more people interested in plant-based items, or just locations where people have literally asked for a mcdonalds.
" Did you read what I wrote? Maybe my above statements will help clarify.
How does this meet the burden of proof I presented to you?"
Pinnacle Foods is an animal agriculture group. Gardein belongs to them. Money going into Gardein goes into Pinnacle Foods. Next question.
"It's good you acknowledge it's a bias, but this is still irrelevant. Animals don't give a damn how they are viewed by humans, they are concerned with how we treat them (on an individual level anyway).
Which is more important, animal lives or how animals would feel if they understood what an impossible burger is imitating?"
You do realize that 188 rats were killed for Impossible Whopper to be cooked on the same grill as the regular whopper, picking up beef tallow and gristle while people fund Burger King, one of the largest bovine murdering groups in the world right? You don't see any issue with this kind of behavior? Do you think that somehow cross contamination and animal testing is vegan?
"No, I've already explained this." This is in response to me making it absolutely clear that giving animal ag megacorps money = funding animal exploitation, rape, and murder.
Still a moot point.
"It's like you didn't even read my response to you.
One last time, put quickly, if more people (vegan or not) are to buy the vegan alternatives to these meats, companies will invest LESS in animal meat and more in PLANT meat."
Let's use this example as the Beyond KFC stuff (that isn't even vegan) is still relatively fresh. Burger King's CEO actually talked about how all the Impossible Whopper did was give them more money from people who would not normally go to Burger King and that it made no negative impact on people buying regular whoppers.
"Is it in the fat, or just the same fryers? If it's in the same fryers but not in chicken fat that's not a big deal (although I wouldn't eat it).
See, THIS is a legitimate concern, when animal products are still used as an ingredient or as part of the cooking process.
However, there still may be an a case to make here that there's still less animal suffering if it's just the fat and not the food itself. It may not be suitable for vegans/vegetarians, bit for the average non-vegan it'd probably still be overall less harm."
There is chicken fat in the fryers, because there is chicken in the fryers. Just like how mcdonalds cooks their fries in a mixture of beef tallow and some dairy derivative. You don't not get food contamination from being cooked in oil that animal flesh was soaked in. It's part of the cooking process, and as such, becomes an ingredient in the end result. KFC and the Vegan Society are both saying this isn't even vegetarian friendly, and you're holding onto the idea that somehow an animal didn't suffer just because the item itself is plant based? Completely ignoring that an animal that suffered is cooked in the same fryer, in the same oil, at the same time, with its oil and fat coming off into all the other food items cooked in said fryer? Veganism isn't just about not harming animals.
Allow me to quote the definition of veganism from said Vegan Society: Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of
exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing
or any other purpose.
There are many ways to embrace vegan living. Yet one thing all vegans have in common is a plant-based diet avoiding all animal foods such as meat (including fish, shellfish and insects), dairy, eggs and honey -
as well as avoiding animal-derived materials, products tested on animals and places that use animals for entertainment.
"Again, I've addressed all of this. I don't mean to disrespect, but you're giving me the impression that you're motivated by ideological thinking rather than a consequentialist outlook.
brimstoneSalad knows far more about the subject and the economics of it than I do, so he'd likely do a better job of explaining this to you, but I'm gonna do the best I can.
"
If you're taking a utilitarian outlook on Animal Liberation by musing that some animal exploitation is good as long as you have the hopes that 30 years later KFC will be Kentucky Plant Based Mock Chicken, you're a plant-based dieter, not a vegan. At least not by the Vegan Society's standards.
Did you read what I wrote? Maybe my above statements will help clarify.