There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual. She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables. We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
You have to be doing it on purpose at this point, nobody accidentally misses the context with that amount of pinpoint accuracy.
You’re even including partial sentences and specifically leaving out the part that gives the context.
OK so I’ll do this one line by line and then you’re on your own.
There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual.
The whole line was
Veganism is a luxury of modern times and certain social economic circles.
As for “patently counterfactual” that’s a strong phrase for zero supporting arguments.
She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables.
Yes, as a supporting argument that the current conditions mean that it’s not universally economically viable to subsist on vegetables.
We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
It was mentioned yes, but in the context of current conditions.
I’ll simplify for you.
As things currently are it is not always economically viable to subsist on vegetables alone.
There was no argument that it isn’t possible for the world to get to a point where this is possible, just that it’s not the current world.
Do you know what the word is for an item that is possible to obtain with an expenditure of wealth, while a less costly viable alternative exists?
There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
No, they describe many reasons aside from just the purchase price, if you haven’t seen them i suggest you back and re-read the post, it’s like 3 small paragraphs.
In case you are still struggling. I’ll bullet point them for you.
Purchase price
Availability
Quality
Accessibility
Opportunity/Prep Time Cost
Overall your replies imply a lack of ability to empathize with another persons circumstances and not a small amount of (let them eat cake) entitlement.
it’s great that you are in a financial situation, physical location and with enough free time to make vegetarianism viable.
Declaring that it’s not possible to be in a situation worse than the one you are in, especially when realistic potential reasons for the differences are offered, is tone-deaf and frankly disgusting.
I’m done with this, if you can’t figure it out from the above that’s a you problem, and i suppose anyone who has to deal with you on a regular basis.
There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual. She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables. We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
You have to be doing it on purpose at this point, nobody accidentally misses the context with that amount of pinpoint accuracy.
You’re even including partial sentences and specifically leaving out the part that gives the context.
OK so I’ll do this one line by line and then you’re on your own.
The whole line was
As for “patently counterfactual” that’s a strong phrase for zero supporting arguments.
Yes, as a supporting argument that the current conditions mean that it’s not universally economically viable to subsist on vegetables.
It was mentioned yes, but in the context of current conditions.
I’ll simplify for you.
As things currently are it is not always economically viable to subsist on vegetables alone.
There was no argument that it isn’t possible for the world to get to a point where this is possible, just that it’s not the current world.
Do you know what the word is for an item that is possible to obtain with an expenditure of wealth, while a less costly viable alternative exists?
No, they describe many reasons aside from just the purchase price, if you haven’t seen them i suggest you back and re-read the post, it’s like 3 small paragraphs.
In case you are still struggling. I’ll bullet point them for you.
Overall your replies imply a lack of ability to empathize with another persons circumstances and not a small amount of (let them eat cake) entitlement.
it’s great that you are in a financial situation, physical location and with enough free time to make vegetarianism viable.
Declaring that it’s not possible to be in a situation worse than the one you are in, especially when realistic potential reasons for the differences are offered, is tone-deaf and frankly disgusting.
I’m done with this, if you can’t figure it out from the above that’s a you problem, and i suppose anyone who has to deal with you on a regular basis.