you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Lol, ok so you're including labor cost?

A couple years of a dear 'gathering nutrients', vs a summer of cultivating a garden and harvesting? Or do I need to include the energy expenditure (energy ingested by the dear minus energy lost to biological processes, vs solar energy collected minus energy expended on building plant mass and energy expended in harvest)?

I was really just pointing out the absurdity of your complaint about the study but you're making this into a fun little digression.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    it costs us almost nothing to take down a deer. it costs us a great deal to raise a garden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Costs nothing to harvest a plant, too.

    Costs a great deal to own a gun and ammunition, a truck to haul, tools and labor to clean and butcher, and more to store and prepare it. To speak nothing of the labor of the dear to produce the biomass.

    Lol we can keep going with this if you want, it's pretty fun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Costs nothing to harvest a plant, too.

    foraging for plants is a lot less calorie efficient than hunting or fishing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Lmao not if you're hunting with spears!

    Or are we allowed to use tools in this hypothetical digression?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    you're the one obsessed with defending a paper whose scope was too limited to cover any of these scenarios so do what you want i guess

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're the one obsessed with dismissing the paper based on qualifiers beyond the scope of the research, so you do you I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    i'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think there was anything deceptive about its framing, it was addressing the claim that 'vegan diets are a luxury'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not trying to prove that people on food stamps can afford a diet the government hasn't designed their food program for them to afford lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s not trying to prove that people on food stamps can afford a diet the government hasn’t designed their food program for them to afford lmao

    no, but beaver's claim that it's 30% cheaper may not be true for those people. i mean it could be. it could possibly be EVEN CHEAPER. i don't really know. and the linked oxford study doesn't tell us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments