archomrade [he/him] @ archomrade @midwest.social

Posts

15

Comments

1,616

Joined

2 yr. 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.

How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now.

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

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

i don’t really know

YES, now you're getting it

The paper wasn't discussing food stamp programs or even what food you might already have

No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying

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

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'

Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet

I don't think there was anything deceptive about its framing, it was addressing the claim that 'vegan diets are a luxury'

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.

Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose.

You're the one obsessed with dismissing the paper based on qualifiers beyond the scope of the research, so you do you I guess.

I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?

Lmao not if you're hunting with spears!

Or are we allowed to use tools in this hypothetical digression?

Lmao I thought that's what you were doing

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.

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.

oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people

It acknowledges the material conditions of production