▲ 899 ▼ "Being vegan is unnatural" (discuss.tchncs.de) submitted 5 months ago by nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 844 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/55430533
[–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago* (1 child) this study is too narrow to make such a claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) How is it too narrow? They have considered data from more than 150 countries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) they only compared retail costs. they didn't account for people who get food for free or near free through poverty subsistence programs or hunting or fishing or farming their own. it basically didn't cover poor people at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) Retail costs are still costs and plant based diets are globally around 30% cheaper than other diets. Where did I specify consumer (or any other particular) cost in my claim? Do you actually think the government giving free food means the food is cost free as well? Do you think self-sufficient people will affect the measure of the cost of food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) you didnt specify. you made a very broad claim which is not supported by the narrow study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Specification is not needed, even you assumed these were retail costs from the get-go, they only compared retail costs on the next sentence you conflated retail costs with consumer cost they didn’t account for people which of course they didn't, retail costs will be the same even if the person getting the items isn't paying for them. When someone says "this is 30% cheaper now", any reasonable person would understand that they're referring to the retail cost, not the consumer cost unless otherwise specified. Like "this is 30% cheaper on my food stamps". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago it seems like you understand exactly what i'm saying, but you need to somehow paint yourself as right and me as wrong. fine. have a nice day. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) How is it too narrow? They have considered data from more than 150 countries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) they only compared retail costs. they didn't account for people who get food for free or near free through poverty subsistence programs or hunting or fishing or farming their own. it basically didn't cover poor people at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) Retail costs are still costs and plant based diets are globally around 30% cheaper than other diets. Where did I specify consumer (or any other particular) cost in my claim? Do you actually think the government giving free food means the food is cost free as well? Do you think self-sufficient people will affect the measure of the cost of food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) you didnt specify. you made a very broad claim which is not supported by the narrow study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Specification is not needed, even you assumed these were retail costs from the get-go, they only compared retail costs on the next sentence you conflated retail costs with consumer cost they didn’t account for people which of course they didn't, retail costs will be the same even if the person getting the items isn't paying for them. When someone says "this is 30% cheaper now", any reasonable person would understand that they're referring to the retail cost, not the consumer cost unless otherwise specified. Like "this is 30% cheaper on my food stamps". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago it seems like you understand exactly what i'm saying, but you need to somehow paint yourself as right and me as wrong. fine. have a nice day. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) they only compared retail costs. they didn't account for people who get food for free or near free through poverty subsistence programs or hunting or fishing or farming their own. it basically didn't cover poor people at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) Retail costs are still costs and plant based diets are globally around 30% cheaper than other diets. Where did I specify consumer (or any other particular) cost in my claim? Do you actually think the government giving free food means the food is cost free as well? Do you think self-sufficient people will affect the measure of the cost of food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) you didnt specify. you made a very broad claim which is not supported by the narrow study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Specification is not needed, even you assumed these were retail costs from the get-go, they only compared retail costs on the next sentence you conflated retail costs with consumer cost they didn’t account for people which of course they didn't, retail costs will be the same even if the person getting the items isn't paying for them. When someone says "this is 30% cheaper now", any reasonable person would understand that they're referring to the retail cost, not the consumer cost unless otherwise specified. Like "this is 30% cheaper on my food stamps". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago it seems like you understand exactly what i'm saying, but you need to somehow paint yourself as right and me as wrong. fine. have a nice day. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago (1 child) Retail costs are still costs and plant based diets are globally around 30% cheaper than other diets. Where did I specify consumer (or any other particular) cost in my claim? Do you actually think the government giving free food means the food is cost free as well? Do you think self-sufficient people will affect the measure of the cost of food? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) you didnt specify. you made a very broad claim which is not supported by the narrow study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Specification is not needed, even you assumed these were retail costs from the get-go, they only compared retail costs on the next sentence you conflated retail costs with consumer cost they didn’t account for people which of course they didn't, retail costs will be the same even if the person getting the items isn't paying for them. When someone says "this is 30% cheaper now", any reasonable person would understand that they're referring to the retail cost, not the consumer cost unless otherwise specified. Like "this is 30% cheaper on my food stamps". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago it seems like you understand exactly what i'm saying, but you need to somehow paint yourself as right and me as wrong. fine. have a nice day. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) you didnt specify. you made a very broad claim which is not supported by the narrow study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Specification is not needed, even you assumed these were retail costs from the get-go, they only compared retail costs on the next sentence you conflated retail costs with consumer cost they didn’t account for people which of course they didn't, retail costs will be the same even if the person getting the items isn't paying for them. When someone says "this is 30% cheaper now", any reasonable person would understand that they're referring to the retail cost, not the consumer cost unless otherwise specified. Like "this is 30% cheaper on my food stamps". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago it seems like you understand exactly what i'm saying, but you need to somehow paint yourself as right and me as wrong. fine. have a nice day. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) Specification is not needed, even you assumed these were retail costs from the get-go, they only compared retail costs on the next sentence you conflated retail costs with consumer cost they didn’t account for people which of course they didn't, retail costs will be the same even if the person getting the items isn't paying for them. When someone says "this is 30% cheaper now", any reasonable person would understand that they're referring to the retail cost, not the consumer cost unless otherwise specified. Like "this is 30% cheaper on my food stamps". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago it seems like you understand exactly what i'm saying, but you need to somehow paint yourself as right and me as wrong. fine. have a nice day. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] goedel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago it seems like you understand exactly what i'm saying, but you need to somehow paint yourself as right and me as wrong. fine. have a nice day. permalink fedilink source parent
