Sorry but you’re obfuscating. If you accept this “it is proven that when customers flee from Item X, regardless of what Item X is, businesses stop selling it” to be true then you also accept this “It’s a proven fact that these restaurants will stop offering/selling these items if the customers stop buying them” to be true. Because in the end they’re the same sentence, except one is general and one is specific. If you agree that the general is true then arguing for proof of the specific is silly because the truth of the general statement IS the proof of the specific example.
You replying to #125. Near the end of #125, I offer some alternatives to the concept of ‘if they stop buying I stop selling’. That’s too simplistic, and the more complicated flow of events invalidates your assumption in #127 that if I’ve accepted one I’ve accepted the other.
In the specific case at hand, as I’ve explained upthread more than once, there are multiple factors involved in consumer purchasing decisions. You’re over-simplifying. Nobody has yet made the case that consumers are rejecting large portion food items. If that case were made, it would have to include isolation of the reason for the rejection to the one individual factor, large portions.
Life is complicated. So is this issue.
Have fun ~ I give up!
Apparently it depends on what the meaning of IF is.....
I though I knew...
Maybe it’s like Spanish with Si and Si’