▲ 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 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) i'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lol we can keep going with this if you want, it’s pretty fun. this smacks of bad faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago Lmao I thought that's what you were doing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) i'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lol we can keep going with this if you want, it’s pretty fun. this smacks of bad faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago Lmao I thought that's what you were doing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) i'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) i'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) i'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) i'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) i'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -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' permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago i don’t really know YES, now you're getting it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lol we can keep going with this if you want, it’s pretty fun. this smacks of bad faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago Lmao I thought that's what you were doing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago Lmao I thought that's what you were doing permalink fedilink source parent
