491
Maybe this is better for everyone
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
491 points (85.5% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26778 readers
1879 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper. Eating plants is not as of a much of a privilege as you believe it to be.
your oxford study doesn't account for anyone who gets free or subsidized meat, or who catches, raises, or hunts their own. so it excludes basically all of the working poor, which is basically everyone.
How does catching, raising, or hunting meat compare to planting or gathering their own plant-based food?
Or how does 'free or subsidized meat' compare with free or subsidized plant based food?
as the deer spends all year gathering nutrients, and they can spend one morning gathering the deer, it seems to me it's highly effective.
Most vegans would allow an exception for certain lifestyles. People hunting for their homestead aren't going to cause a global issue like is currently happening.
Ideally we wouldnt hunt at all but thats like some sort of futuristic goal. Noones going to tell you to starve your family to appease veganism, thats not the point.
The point is to reduce suffering and abuse wherever possible. Sometimes its not possible.
that's not what the vegan society says about animal exploitation.
Lol, ok so you're including labor cost?
A couple years of a dear 'gathering nutrients', vs a summer of cultivating a garden and harvesting? Or do I need to include the energy expenditure (energy ingested by the dear minus energy lost to biological processes, vs solar energy collected minus energy expended on building plant mass and energy expended in harvest)?
I was really just pointing out the absurdity of your complaint about the study but you're making this into a fun little digression.
it costs us almost nothing to take down a deer. it costs us a great deal to raise a garden.
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.
foraging for plants is a lot less calorie efficient than hunting or fishing.
Lmao not if you're hunting with spears!
Or are we allowed to use tools in this hypothetical digression?
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
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'm not dismissing the paper. i'm explaining how it's being deceptively framed.
I don't think there was anything deceptive about its framing, it was addressing the claim that 'vegan diets are a luxury'
but it doesn't actually show whether poor people can afford a vegan diet. it's misleading.
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.
YES, now you're getting it
this smacks of bad faith.
Lmao I thought that's what you were doing
if it's free, then throwing it out and acquiring plants is more expensive.
If it's free then throwing it out costs nothing though, right? Or are you talking about the cost of the state subsidy?
Wouldn't it be cheaper to the state to subsidize a plant-based diet instead?
regardless of what would be a good decision for the state, the oxford paper doesn't acknowledge the material conditions of most people.
but replacing it would cost something. throwing away perfectly good food isn't something most people think is a moral good.
I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
this subthread was about beaver's misleading link.
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.