i don’t see what your point could possibly be. most people will not find it cheaper to be vegan without significant changes to both their own lifestyle and systemic change. the oxford paper completely ignores anyone who isn’t
The paper is discussing the cost of the diet, not the safety net programs that are built around the american diet.
A paper that analyses the consumer choices and systemic hurtles to eating a vegan diet it would be a different paper, and it would be making a different point than this one.
so the headline that is used on the site, and the excerpt used to create the link in this thread both need some heavy caveats. without proper context, both the claims made by them are actually false.
if it’s free, then throwing it out and acquiring plants is more expensive.
If it’s free then throwing it out costs nothing though, right? Or are you talking about the cost of the state subsidy?
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to the state to subsidize a plant-based diet instead?
regardless of what would be a good decision for the state, the oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people.
It acknowledges the material conditions of production
i don’t see what your point could possibly be. most people will not find it cheaper to be vegan without significant changes to both their own lifestyle and systemic change. the oxford paper completely ignores anyone who isn’t
The paper is discussing the cost of the diet, not the safety net programs that are built around the american diet.
A paper that analyses the consumer choices and systemic hurtles to eating a vegan diet it would be a different paper, and it would be making a different point than this one.
so the headline that is used on the site, and the excerpt used to create the link in this thread both need some heavy caveats. without proper context, both the claims made by them are actually false.
Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose.
which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked.
but replacing it would cost something. throwing away perfectly good food isn’t something most people think is a moral good.
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.