this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
491 points (85.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26961 readers
3700 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/ExplicitContent


-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

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

this subthread was about beaver's misleading link.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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'

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

if i have food, throwing it away and getting more food is more expensive.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

right. it's simply not scoped to support the claim tha being vegan is 30% cheaper

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.