▲ 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 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
