On 04/02/15 22:59, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Could frame this differently? The normal framing (above) often ends up > with an assumption that everyone must eat meat, with only a limited > set-aside for vegetarians. This results in overconsumption of meat: it > forces normal people to eat meat in order to avoid running out of > vegetarian dishes for the vegetarians.
While I am in the group that sometimes wished they could eat the vegetarian dish, because it looked tastier, or because they wanted to skip meat one day, I really don't agree with your proposal. No dietary restrictions means what it means, not that meat is mandatory. Lacto-ovo-vegetarian is by definition a dietary restriction, no matter how you frame it. > This way, we could ensure that the people who need meat can get it, > without pushing everyone who isn't explicitly vegetarian into eating > meat. I don't *need* meat, I just like eating it as part of my diet. A more sensible approach would be to have many options, or just be free to choose between the two offered at will, but it seems that our caterers for the past many years can't offer more than two options, in more or less restricted numbers. This proposal will not solve the underlying problem, just changes the semantics, in a way that I find troubling. -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho) _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
