▲ 491 ▼ Maybe this is better for everyone (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 444 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people It acknowledges the material conditions of production permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 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 paying full price at the supermarket. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If it’s free then throwing it out costs nothing though, right? but replacing it would cost something. throwing away perfectly good food isn't something most people think is a moral good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) this subthread was about beaver's misleading link. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people It acknowledges the material conditions of production permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 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 paying full price at the supermarket. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people It acknowledges the material conditions of production permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 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 paying full price at the supermarket. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 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 paying full price at the supermarket. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you seemed to be saying i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m not trying to make this about you, then kindly leave me out of your analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other. stop making it personal. I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If it’s free then throwing it out costs nothing though, right? but replacing it would cost something. throwing away perfectly good food isn't something most people think is a moral good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) this subthread was about beaver's misleading link. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) this subthread was about beaver's misleading link. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) this subthread was about beaver's misleading link. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study ...for a limited segment of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago* It's actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it's talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing. permalink fedilink source parent
