Sam Bankman-Fried living on bread and water because jail won't abide vegan diet, lawyer says
nbcnews.com
The co-founder of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX pleaded not guilty to a seven count indictment charging him with wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering.
An attorney for FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried said in federal court Tuesday his client has to subsist on bread, water and peanut butter because the jail he's in isn't accommodating his vegan diet.
You are viewing a single comment
I disagree. It's a moral issue. What if someone was wrongly convicted? Force them to go against their moral system? I personally couldn't bear to eat the flesh of an animal. I get this dudes a criminal but like, I don't think the issue itself is laughable.
Even if they weren't wrongly convicted. Murderer happens to follow any one of the religions that forbid pork? What's feeding them bacon going to accomplish, exactly? It's purely out of spite when the object is supposed to be to discourage reoffending. Treating people humanely makes them act human. Call them a dog and they'll act like a dog.
Even the more progressive can be like this. People have weird ideas about human worth being something measurable and thus rescindable.
Just playing devil's advocate here:
When a person does crime, they've decided to violate a Social Contact that says we all agree to abide by a body of laws for the benefit of us all. They've opted out of that system at some scale, be it stealing a loaf of bread, to fleecing thousands of people out of billions of dollars, to (on an orthogonal dimension) depriving people of their safety, civil rights, and very life. It is an abhorrent notion to many, but to many others, it's just a way to "get ahead." To crime is to assault the fabric of modern society.
It's not an unreasonable response, then, when the abiding party (I.e., those who DIDN'T crime) say "this guy deserves to be treated the way he treated us." Eye for an Eye is a VERY old code of punishment. Its also effective because it puts things in concrete, unambiguous terms.
But, ostensibly we are modern and cultured now. Now we can discuss where the lines are between where brutality must meet brutality and where compassion must meet intransigence, but really it's all just academic. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, and not everyone deserves to be dignified when they have so befouled the social contract. Some people are truly, fundamentally broken and just need to be listed from Society for our collective good.
All to ready to pronounce social death, people are squeamish about what to do about the corpus of the Self they'd already damned. Capital punishment is cruel, lifetime incarceration is cruel, and while rehabilitation is preferred, it is intensive, time-consuming and perhaps ultimately fruitless for the most incorrigible among us.
So what do you do? Someone's will has to be broken here. For the good of us all.
I think the statistics show our non-rehab priaon system only hardens the will of criminals, and if we want to break their will to do crime we will actually have to show them compassion, as dozens of other countries are successfully doing.
Absolutely, there needs to be an effort to help people become better citizens, and not just beating them down. People who you beat down fight back to protect themselves, which is literally the opposite of what you want here (unless the goal is to have more people rescinding).
Ummm… you think an eye for an eye is effective? You realize the saying is “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, right?
I was staking out a rhetorical position for the sake of debate. "Devil's Advocate." As much as said so on the tin. Didn't really get a debate going though.
Personally, no. I think "eye for an eye" is an abhorrent mode of punishment, excepting that there needs to be a spine for dealing with the most incorrigible and truly evil among us. I don't profess to know what that spine is, though.
Okay good, that’s my bad for missing that. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Cheers! 🍻
There was nothing to disagree with. I didn't say I don't think they shouldn't supply vegan. I just know what the US prison system is like and wouldn't expect them to. It's fucking criminal gladiator college. There are some prisons that barely feed the inmates and make them need money for commissary food to not be hungry constantly.
I'm sure where SBF is being kept is a white collar low security place where they treat them better. They're still treated like caged dogs though.
Gotcha, i just thought the laughable part meant like 'we shouldn't care'. Yeah the prison system sucks
At what point do you consider something not an animal? Is it a size consideration? Like, you'd eat a hummingbird but not a chicken? Warm versus cold blooded? Is it vertebrae versus endoskeleton? Would you eat ants and crickets?
Because I get the whole no animal by products, but fermented foods are animal by products. Most breads have yeasts in it, those are animals. Beer and wine, same.
This is a completely different topic but okay.
Since you want specifics, veganism isn't actually about animals, its about sentient beings. I wouldn't eat a cow or a dog or a human, because they each have the capacity to suffer and the desire to live. Anything that has this capacity is off the table for vegans. Even bugs, while obviously being less sentient than a cow or human, still demonstrate this in some capacity. So no, I just eat plants and fungi. Technically I could eat a jellyfish or even an oyster (although vegans debate it), since this capacity has not been demonstrated by them. Why would I harm others for my own pleasure/sustenance when there is an alternative, especially an alternative that is cheaper, healthier, and far more sustainable?
Yeast is a fungus by the way.
Why would I harm others for my own pleasure/sustenance when there is an alternative...?
This, for me, has always been the very simple point and it pains me how many people just don't get it.
the vegan society specifically says animals
And? That's one organizations definition, and the reason they say "all animals" is not because they give jellyfish moral value, but because most nonvegans only respect the rights of humans and a few animals like dogs and cats. So we say "all animals" to generally say we are being morally consistent. Jellyfish and oysters just happen to be edge cases of animals existing without sentience.
you can't prove this.
well they don't have fucking brains lol. why would an oyster evolve the capacity to suffer and fear and desire to live when they literally don't control where they move? it would be a waste of energy. an oyster's nervous system is about as complex as your finger...
there is no proof any nonhuman animal has a "desire to live" because there isn't proof they understand personal mortality.
as for whether they have the capacity to suffer, which is all that sentience really seems to require, you can't prove that they don't have the capacity to suffer because you can't prove a negative. the best you can say is that you don't think there is enough evidence to support a claim that they ARE sentient.
if you saw a human from a tribe who spoke a language you would never understand, how do you know they feel pain and want to live? if you kick a dog, how do you know the dog didn't enjoy it? maybe people who are asleep dont feel pain or want to live. lets just eat people in comas, or who speak other languages, and lets beat dogs because its so unclear whether they like it or not
Animals must just run from danger because the wind pushes them that way. Wonder why dogs wag their tails when they see humans. Strange. Nah no proof they have desires or fears
none of this is proof they understand personal mortality, which is the crux if this disagreement.
No it's not the crux. Avoiding danger to protect their lives is pretty good proof.
A man follows a woman and she runs away.
The man: "she could still wanna have sex"
Maybe you'd be better seeing all the animals that mourn deaths of others.
mourning death of others is not proof that an animal know it, itself, might die.
ah the "I'm not touching you" argument
you're observing behavior and assuming cognition. you need to prove the cognition, and behavior is evidence but not proof.
-said the man, still following the woman
maybe sentience or wanting to live aren't metrics we should use as the basis of our morality.
no, you are just the only one stupid enough to think its unprovable
i didn't say it's unprovable. you're putting words in my mouth.
You're one to talk. No you said "you cant prove" like a million times
why should those be the metrics on which you base morality?
Do you wish to feel pain, or be murdered? Probably not, so why would you do it to someone else with the capacity to feel pain and desire to live? Empathy is the basis.
calling me stupid doesn't undermine my position or bolster yours.
prove this. please find me any proof this is true.
Source: I'm a vegan and interact with other vegans...
this is anecdotal, and you've already said you don't agree with the vegan society, so i don't see any reason to believe your interpretation of their very explicit claim over what they actually say.
i didnt say i don't agree with them. I'm saying your are overanalyzing the definition. this whole argument is opinion, everything is going to be anecdotal...
i'm reading the words they wrote. you're saying "they didn't mean the words they wrote"
you are misusing a definition. its like using newtonian physics for large scale systems. newton wasnt wrong but his equations aren't great for talking about galaxies and black holes.
newton WAS wrong.
wow. you already made it clear you dont understand what evidence is for or how things are proven. its no surprise you dont understand science and theories. newton was not wrong. his physics are for a different scope than einstein physics.
you're claiming they don't mean the words they chose.
nope. you are just stubborn
the founder of the vegan society also coined the term vegan.
and coined it before the vegan society existed. They aren't the owners of veganism. Its a philosophy. Don't ignore the rest of that comment either. Or stop making this stupid point that no vegan actually believes
don't tell me what to do
Okay continue making a stupid point instead of listening.
calling me stupid doesnt bolster your position at all.
once again, called your point stupid. you are making shit up
"i'm not touching you"
you are the one acting like a ten year old rn
you're only giving one vegan's definition. you don't speak for everyone.
Perfect, now we can agree the vegan society is just an organization
calling me stupid doesnt bolster your position at all.
Didn't call you stupid, I called your point stupid. Why couldn't you consolidate these replies?
i prefer to deal with one topic at a time.
this makes this conversation impossible to keep track of. you're just spamming my inbox
ah, the rhetorical equivalent of a ten year old saying "i'm not touching you".