Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 months agoMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldimagemessage-square456fedilinkarrow-up1590
arrow-up1590imageMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldRoflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 months agomessage-square456fedilink
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoTheir 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.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 months ago 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.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months ago 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’
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 months agoif i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoThe paper wasn’t discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 months agoright. it’s simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoWhat 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
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 months ago 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.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-24 months agoIt’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.
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.
and it did so misleadingly, 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’
if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive.
The paper wasn’t discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have
right. it’s simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper
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
…for a limited segment of the population.
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.