🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4qpvjm$74l@lace.colorado.edu>,
Frank Crary <fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>In article <4qpdq5$ou7@lace.colorado.edu>,
>matthew conroy <conroym@euclid.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>>Give up Teflon, NutraSweet and Zip-Loc bags????
>>>How would I live?
>>>In a tent in the woods like you "Boycott Everything" lunatics?
>
>>So you live in a dwelling made of teflon?  Or
>>do you live in a Zip-Loc bag?
>
>Perhaps not teflon, but I'm fairly sure many homes use insulation,
>etc. made by the companies in question. The same is probably
>true of many household appliances. Also, what about indirect
>use? E.g. did any of the tools used to build the house use
>teflon parts? If one were serious about the boycott, wouldn't
>indirect use count?
>

Count for what?  My understanding is that the purpose of 
a boycott is to influence companies (or other organizations)
by lessening their revenue.  This is done by
buying their products less often, or not at all.  It isn't
some kind of 'use company X's products and go to hell' edict.

If you already own company X's products, ceasing
to use them will probably not influence company X (e.g. moving out
of my Dow (or whoever) insulated home will not cause Dow
any grief).  If there is some product that you simply cannot
do without, and so you buy it from the otherwise boycotted
company, meanwhile ceasing to buy other products from them,
then you are definitely participating in the boycott.

It is possible that one can object to a company, and choose
to boycott its products, without actually objecting
to the products themselves.  So just because some people
choose to boycott some companies that make nifty 20th
century type stuff doesn't necessarily mean they want to
do without that nifty stuff.  They could be objecting
to the company's hiring practices, pollution record, etc. 
I wonder what other methods people would suggest be 
tried to cause a company to change its ways.

Granted, there are extremists in all camps...


matt