Roflmasterbigpimp to Lemmy Shitpost • 2 months agoMaybe this is better for everyonelockimagemessage-square458arrow-up1591arrow-down1100
arrow-up1491arrow-down1imageMaybe this is better for everyonelockRoflmasterbigpimp to Lemmy Shitpost • 2 months agomessage-square458
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish1•2 months agoI thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•2 months agothis subthread was about beaver’s misleading link.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish0•2 months agoTheir 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•2 months ago 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]linkfedilinkEnglish1•2 months ago 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•2 months agoif i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish1•2 months agoThe paper wasn’t discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•2 months agoright. it’s simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish0•2 months agoWhat 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