Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 months agoMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldimagemessage-square298fedilinkarrow-up183arrow-down121
arrow-up162arrow-down1imageMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldRoflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 months agomessage-square298fedilink
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·4 months agoIf 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?
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·4 months ago 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.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down3·4 months ago oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people It acknowledges the material conditions of production
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-24 months agoi don’t see what your point could possibly be. most people will not find it cheaper to be vegan without significant changes to both their own lifestyle and systemic change. the oxford paper completely ignores anyone who isn’t paying full price at the supermarket.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 months ago If it’s free then throwing it out costs nothing though, right? but replacing it would cost something. throwing away perfectly good food isn’t something most people think is a moral good.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoI thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
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.
It acknowledges the material conditions of production
i don’t see what your point could possibly be. most people will not find it cheaper to be vegan without significant changes to both their own lifestyle and systemic change. the oxford paper completely ignores anyone who isn’t
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?