• mathemachristian [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    No, a boycott is withholding purchase to get a company to change. For example most people observing BDS would have no problem buying mcdonalds if they are no longer part of the occupation. The problem isn’t the product but how it’s obtained. With vegans the problem is the product and no amout of “free range” or “no chick killing” is gonna have us buy dairy or eggs.

    • Aqarius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The product is “food”, the problem is animal abuse. Would vegans have a problem with buying a vegan bigmac?

      • mathemachristian [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It depends on the vegan and other circumstance I suppose. I would on BDS grounds and that even a vegan bigmac still supports one of the largest cow murdering corporations there is. I don’t understand the point of a “vegan” bigmac and having mcdonalds not be part of the palestinian or cow genocide means it would functionally be a completely different entity bearing only the name due to historical reasons. Like Nintendo the playing cards company and Nintendo the videogames company.

            • Aqarius@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Yes, the goal of a boycott is to encourage/force change through economic means. BDS buying Israeli olives would require either the olives somehow be fully separate from the entire rest of the Israeli market (which, if the target is not McD specifically but the meat industry as a whole, a vegan bigmac would fit) or about the same level of change to Israel as McD becoming vegan only. It’s roughly analogous, is the point.