The idea is that in this case everybody profits. Universal again ≠ personal gain, even if the campaigners are included.
In the case of Vince, everybody profits because of the sustainability, BUT he has another very clear personal economic gain and that makes his intentions questionable. It would be more easily accepted if there wasn’t this clear conflict of interests.
Maalus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Personal gain is when you yourself profit from something way more than other people do. In this case - getting boatloads of money for something that ultimately doesn"t matter in the grand scheme of things.
Naich@lemmings.world 1 month ago
Personal gain in the case of green lobbying is a subset of universal gain. Exactly the same as Vince’s case. It doesn’t follow the he will profit more than anyone else, as anyone else can supply meat-free food too.
Maalus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Except you say that there is universal gain from allowing dishes to not contain meat. When there is not, if it isn’t even worse. So now the lowest bidder will simply give you a less nutritious meal because they care about money not the students. And this is exactly why a law like this existed. So that a catering company won’t just feed people potatoes mixed with potatoes 100% of the time.
Sunshine@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Not you’re resorting to misinformation as the whole foods plant-based is healthier.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
Naich@lemmings.world 1 month ago
Except that the law says the meals have to be nutritious to a set level. So no, they can’t do that.