“If paying for advertising costs only $11 per vegetarian-year, paying money directly to people is probably a bad idea.”
Right. I was suggesting the advertising, and sloppily describing it as paying people to go vegetarian.
“I don’t understand what ‘be on the safe side’ is supposed to mean in that sentence.”
If you have doubts about the $11 number, which is reasonable as it contains quite a lot of guesswork, you might say want to give more to increase the chances you’re giving at least enough to make a vegetarian year.
If you have doubts about the $11 number, which is reasonable as it contains quite a lot of guesswork, you might say want to give more to increase the chances you’re giving at least enough to make a vegetarian year.
Why should “giving at least enough to make a vegetarian year” be the goal?
Because we’re comparing to maybe going vegetarian yourself. Yes, it might be that both are silly, but this post is just arguing that one dominates the other.
“If paying for advertising costs only $11 per vegetarian-year, paying money directly to people is probably a bad idea.”
Right. I was suggesting the advertising, and sloppily describing it as paying people to go vegetarian.
“I don’t understand what ‘be on the safe side’ is supposed to mean in that sentence.”
If you have doubts about the $11 number, which is reasonable as it contains quite a lot of guesswork, you might say want to give more to increase the chances you’re giving at least enough to make a vegetarian year.
Why should “giving at least enough to make a vegetarian year” be the goal?
Because we’re comparing to maybe going vegetarian yourself. Yes, it might be that both are silly, but this post is just arguing that one dominates the other.