▲ 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
[–] 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
