You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
Costs nothing to harvest a plant, too.
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
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.
Lol we can keep going with this if you want, it’s pretty fun.
this smacks of bad faith.
Lmao I thought that's what you were doing