Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 个月前Maybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldimagemessage-square453fedilinkarrow-up1582arrow-down1100
arrow-up1482arrow-down1imageMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldRoflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 个月前message-square453fedilink
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·4 个月前I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 个月前this subthread was about beaver’s misleading link.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·4 个月前Their link was addressing the claim that eating vegan is a luxury. For what the comment was responding to I think it was perfectly well framed, but you can extrapolate anything you want from it if that’s your thing.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 个月前 heir link was addressing the claim that eating vegan is a luxury. and it did so misleadingly, as being in teh position to always pay full price for food at a store is a luxury.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 个月前 as being in teh position to always pay full price for food at a store is a luxury. Not if by ‘cost’ they meant ‘cost’, and not ‘what they get from the state at no cost’
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 个月前if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 个月前The paper wasn’t discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 个月前right. it’s simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·4 个月前What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study, even if you’d prefer to interpret it to mean something else
I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
this subthread was about beaver’s misleading link.
Their link was addressing the claim that eating vegan is a luxury.
For what the comment was responding to I think it was perfectly well framed, but you can extrapolate anything you want from it if that’s your thing.
and it did so misleadingly, as being in teh position to always pay full price for food at a store is a luxury.
Not if by ‘cost’ they meant ‘cost’, and not ‘what they get from the state at no cost’
if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive.
The paper wasn’t discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have
right. it’s simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper
What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.”
Which is factually supported by the study, even if you’d prefer to interpret it to mean something else