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
He is Vegan. Irrespective of how we feel about what he did, the failure to address his core ethical beliefs is completely unacceptable. This would never occur if his belief was rooted in ideas of a higher being or afterlife. Not that I'm planning on going to jail anytime soon, but the thought that I would not be able to abide by that daily practice of my life would be incredibly distressing. Unless he is doing it for environmental reasons (I don't know) he likely seeks total animal liberation, and you're going to force feed him stolen animal secretions? Coproducts of dead baby cows, blended up chicks, and beings bred into painful bodies? The alternative is malnutrition? I would highly consider Jainism or Sikhism on this fact alone. Fuck you if you think he should be forced to go against his ethical beliefs.
That's a very sensationalist way to phrase your point and makes you sound fairly biased in the matter.
In the law, religious belief is a protected class, but dietary choice is not. A reasonable debate could be had about if it should be protected. The prison system nor the court room is the right forum, because it needs to be decided by the legislature.
Veganism it's not a simple dietary choice. Depending on how long the person has been vegan, a sudden switch could make them very sick.
And let's not pretend that prisons don't regularly disregard inmates dietary restrictions, even the medically necessary ones. It's easy to laugh at this one because 'haha vegan' but it's still atrocious to ignore any dietary restriction, let alone such a common one.
Being celiac, or having a nut allergy is a dietary restriction. Voluntarily choosing not to eat animals or animal products is not a dietary restriction.
I agree, I would feed him pig entrails, by force even, maybe even make him slaughter the piglet or he can't eat anything at all.
I'm sure he could ease into a merely vegetarian or occasionally vegetarian diet. He has all the time in the world.
Veganism is not strictly a dietary choice. Look into ethical veganism. In the UK, Ethical Vegans are a legally protected class. I understand they are not legally protected in America - this does not require me to change my position at all. I made it clear that it's my opinion, and I presented how I would personally feel to be in his position and what I might consider just to have that ethical belief respected.
It's a lifestyle choice based on moral ramifications. I understand that you're not the legislative but it totally should be a part of the same protected class.
It is in most civilised nations.
Nobody said the guy is entirely ethical ¯\(ツ)/¯
I don't think being forced to consume death/murder is the answer to him not being ethical with people's funds.
So you aren't killing the plants and vegetables you eat as a vegan?
Or you perceive no ethical quandaries about murdering plants?
Or plants don't count because they don't have the same type of nervous system that allows us to communicate in an ethically direct fashion?
Are trees ethically more important than plants you can ethically eat, thus perceived as more ethically protected under such auspices?
And what's your ethical stance on property development groups clear cutting small pine tree forested areas near existing residential/industrial/commercial zoned areas to create more affordable single family and multi-family homes for low income families?
Friendly tip to everyone on the internet. If you find yourself writing this, please shut the fuck up.
Yeah, can't be out here forcing cultists to think about what they're actually saying
Vegans are all well aware the philosophy is about reducing suffering for sentient beings. Nobody thinks "being alive" is an ethical metric. Rather, the bad faith argument about "plants feel pain" (which is absolute horse shit) is constantly spouted like it's some kind of refutation of veganism. Not to mention this idiotic "cultist" slur that's leveraged to make it seem like veganism isn't the single approach that's actually grounded in reality.
And if that means brigading and defending pieces of shit who rob other human beings of their hard-earned money and has stolen billions of dollars, giving bad faith arguments, deconstructing justice as a fundamental concept and in general being a bunch of fucking cultists, who cares. You'll happily accuse people who want to see people like him be punished, even in a court of law, of being subhuman savages while happily acting as if the ends justify the means to enforce your evil ideological bullshit. And who cares who is harmed by your words and actions? People don't matter, animals do.
Yeah, either that or it's unnecessary to kill animals for food and clothes and shit and we just don't do it. IDK what the hell you're on about.
If I'm more specific, what Vegans care about is conscious experience. They don't care if something is alive or has some form of reactive biological intelligence. Its not a loose definition of killing that's the problem, it's the killing of conscious beings.
There is no scientific consensus as to the potential for consciousness in plants/trees. Almost nobody affirms that they are. You'll find generally that when we discuss consciousness we describe beings with brains, or if we get in to gray areas, beings that at least have some form of nervous system. Since there is some level of brain plasticity, I tend to take the position that consciousness is an emergent property found in those with a nervous system at bare minimum, but absolutely and especially those with brains. That said, there are particular areas of brains that if compromised will show patterns of lost consciousness, but I just don't affirm that those areas are entirelly responsible.
So if plants and trees are not conscious, and they don't experience reality, and there is no subject, then there is no one to grant rights to. If we were talking about some random planet that had no conscious life on it, a planet that for some reason could never support conscious life but could support plant life, I would have no ethical quandary with a space fairing civilization taking all of those resources and leaving the planet with not but rock.
The need for residential housing complicates the ethics of forest habitat removal but not by that much if we consider what a vegan world looks like. Roughly 37.5% of the world's habitable land could be redistributed as that land currently is required for animal agriculture that otherwise wouldn't be. Roughly the size of North America and Brazil combined. You'd have loads of land that could be reforested but also some land that could be reused for housing purposes. As for current reality, I think there's a strong argument that group housing or apartment blocks would be far better for both people and the planet.
I think the true argument is that dietary preference is a bit of a slippery slope. One could easily claim that they abide by a diet of only steak, truffles and lobster.
Obviously that is not feasible for a prison kitchen to fulfil. I do agree though that an effort could be made. I'm not sure if religious preference is catered to (no pork f.i.) and I could even see a point of not serving meat at all.
But the bottom line is that you can't let the prisoner make food demands like that and be considered unethical if not fulfilled. Medically there's not really a case here. Water and bread sounds a bit brutal, but it's not likely that he has no choice at all, it's also a bit of an act that his legal team will no doubt will utilise in court to claim 'inhuman circumstances'
It's not a slippery slope. Vegans have a saying, veganism is the moral baseline. Other prisoners who want to eat steak or chicken or hot dogs are being catered to for their preferences even though those actively cause victimization. But somebody wants to not victimize animals with their diet and all of a sudden it's "fuck them". None of you have thought about this at all.
What he has been accused of doing. He has not been proven guilty. I’m not saying he’s not guilty but until proven so, whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
Yes earlier in the thread it was very mob like. That's me just placating I suppose. He has not been proven guilty and they're already starving him. Doubly wrong.
Nah, fuck him.
You can be vegan for good reasons but I feel like he's just doing it to make a show.
I also think it's for show. Having worked in a jail kitchen, they serve lots of cheap food like beans and rice but also have vegetables and other foods that'd be considered vegan. I suspect what's happening is that he isn't getting gourmet meals like he was previously accustomed to, so he's refusing to eat anything else to gain sympathy points.
Depends on how it’s prepared. There are plenty of things one could add to veg that make them nonvegan, and a lot of us do add those things. Assuming originally vegan foods will be prepared and served in a way that keeps them vegan is a poor assumption. Idk about this guy’s actual diet, but I’ve seen a lot of vegans accidentally breaking their diet by eating something they assume is vegan, and then get sick from it since their bodies aren’t used to it anymore. Not to mention the guilt felt by those who are extremely serious about it.
I agree, only because it's about veganism that there is a supportive reaction. If they were not respecting his Christian/Muslim beliefs for example no one here would bat an eye, especially here.
Admittedly if he held a religion that he claimed required meat consumption I would be in favor of not accommodating him. Thankfully, no major religion does this, because as it turns out in trying to seek ethical practice, they all arrive at the idea that abstaining from killing conscious beings is morally good.
I also believe your first comment is correct and the US prison system is quite messed up to say the least. However I'm being very pragmatic here and I'm not going to shed a tear if he personally only has bread and water to eat. if anything it will do him some good. the problem is that this is applied to every person in jail or most jails.
Word - My point isn't about this particular guy so much as the precedent to be set for all incarcerated people, and the commentary people have surrounding it.
He has been Vegan since at least April 2021. He was not arrested until December 2022. It's not a circus show. The dude's ethical beliefs in regards to Veganism are not in question. They need to be respected.
Ironic he can respect animals more than people. He won't find much sympathy here.
I respect animals more than people in most instances, I've had much worse experiences with other people than most animals in my life.
He doesn't eat humans or variations of incarcerated pregnant ladies' nonconsensually acquired breast milk. He respects them at least the same actually.
Yes instead of killing mammals he does the humane thing of subjecting them to a long life of ruin and despair.
Hey, nobody said he was a wholly good person. Dude's going to jail for a reason.
Those animals don't have money to steal though, so really it's hard to make an equivalency.
The equivalency I've provided is equivalent. If animals were moral agents with bank accounts he may have done the same to them while still respecting their bodily autonomy. But they are just moral subjects with no bank accounts, so I'm only going to make equivalent what is certain. I don't think you can certainly say he respects non-human animals more than humans.
I mean, I don't think he does respect animals more than humans. I don't really believe that's he's actually vegan.
Well homie I've got evidence that suggests he is and you have none that says he isn't so I'm just going to work with that.
That's cool dawg. You can support the shit bag that ripped off thousands of people for billions of dollars if it helps you sleep at night. I don't believe for a second someone that messed up can have a good thought. So he may say he's vegan, but I doubt it.
I support the right to abstain from putting murdered or otherwise non-consenting conscious beings bodily fluid inside your body, irrespective of person. No need to mischaracterize.
You're right, I'm not being fair. Look I can get behind vegans being given vegan options. I even think he should have vegan options. But for this piece of shit in particular, I'm not gonna cry for him waiting for those options.
No one is forcing him to do anythig. He has bread and water, or he is supposed to receive a special vegan menu?
Edit: Also imagine the girl that killed many new born babies, would you also be like: "give her a vegan diet, poor girl!?" BFR
He is not supposed to be malnourished. If the option is malnutrition, or disregard of ethical beliefs, I'd argue they actually are forcing him.
Would you think the same if a mass murderer was requesting vegan food? For example the girl that killed new born babies on purpose, would you also be like: "poor girl, give her a vegan menu!"
Yes
What problem does feeding a mass murderer dead animals solve exactly? Do you not think it's disrespectful to animals to treat them as fodder for petty vengeance?
It solves the problem of not allowing them to use suckers like you to manipulate everyone else to doing what he wants.
If I had to rely on that much hyperbole to make the point, I'd reconsider my position, myself.
It's obvious that's what's happening. Vegans are coming out in droves arguing people shouldn't ever be put in jail simply because SBF is a vegan and they care more about their own than anyone else. They're circling the wagons around this guy, and they never considered that he could just be lying, exaggerating or purposefully playing to them to get them to do exactly what they're doing.
What they're doing isn't accomplishing any good. Neither are you when you defend them. All it's causing is discord.
no one said that. you're making that up.
You're literally the guy who said you don't believe in rights but think people in jail should still be able to be vegan, and to another guy you admitted you don't know what should be done with people if there is no jail. You even went so far as to defend revenge while the rest of your little gang of trolls accused everyone else of being subhuman, violent, bloodthirsty savages for even thinking other people deserve to be punished. Other people of your little tribe or whatever were even arguing with CSA survivors because of it.
You need to sit down and drink yourself a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up. And take the other awful jackasses of yours out with you.
who is in my gang? do we get tattoos? what color bandanas?
i'm not responsible for what anyone else does.
its true.
what tribe do you think i'm in?
You need to sit down and drink yourself a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up.
No, people just have a principle and are applying it evenly. Even if he's lying about being vegan, there's not really a downside to giving him vegan food. It seems as if your argument rests on some notion that it hurts everyone's ego or pride or something to grant this request, because it certainly doesn't make a material difference to any of us. And you're seriously misreading people's arguments in this thread. Did your wife leave you for a vegan or something?
No, they really are doing nothing but aiding and abetting a con man because he appealed to their pet issue to get them to do it. He already has a vegan option, it's called a PBJ. Part of being in jail means you don't get the choices you'd get out on the outside, and part of life in jail is accepting that. If he didn't want to suffer, he shouldn't have stolen billions from innocent people -- or at least went so far as to steal from other rich people.
You're just not listening because you, yourself likely are a vegan. And you don't want to admit you're getting played.
he hasn't been convicted of anything.
By the same token you'd say someone doesn't get the choice to drink clean water or piss in a real toilet. You have the right to follow an obviously extant and relatively mainstream philosophy such as veganism when you're detained and it's not aiding and abetting or being played to just give him some potatoes or something. In fact you've made me laugh.
Yes. A convicted murderer sitting in prison is still a human being with human rights. Fuck this dehumanizing system that only knows punishment. It's no wonder that the recidivism rate in the US is one of the highest in the world.
It's not about the prisoner. Why are you victimizing animals to feed the other prisoners in the first place, but then acting like it's unreasonable not to do it?
There are plenty of items on a typical prison menu he can eat without eating "baby cow", or "blended up chicks" as you put it. There is no need to live off bread and water when there are vegetables, fruit, salad, juice, rice, beans etc. I'm sure this will be pointed out to him and also the limits of what a system will accommodate - dietary or religious needs. Also, his ethics are why he is in prison in the first place so boo hoo for him.
Thats all just speculation.
It's not speculation. You can google "federal prison menu" and see the national menu that prisons supply. Here is the 2022 menu. You will note as you read that menu that there are obviously vegan food items that SBF could eat from every single meal of every single day of the week. Breakfast? Fruit, coffee, bread, branflakes... Lunch? Beans, sweet potatoes, mash, salad, rice, baked potato... Dinner? Tacos, salads, tofu, soups, tater tots, cornbread, corn on the cob, hummus... In most cases he even has a viable main option, and even if he can't he could always trade his main to someone else for a side of theirs. Not to mention stuff he can buy in the commissary - ramen noodles, candy, crackers, cookies etc.
So in summary, SBF is lying and trying to drum up sympathy for his own self-inflicted situation. I'm sure prison food sucks compared to what mommy makes or what his ill gotten fortunes could buy, but he is not reduced to bread and water.
And yet the federal prison menu has no relevance to “ Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn”
The MDC is administered by the federal bureau of prisons and plainly states in its own literature that it offers the nationalised standard menu. So me pointing you at the link to the nationalised standard menu couldn't be more relevant. It's literally what they have to eat in this place and other federal facilities.
SBF is in prison and has been relieved of his freedom.
The penal system must offer him a diet that satisfies his daily nutritional requirements because he is not free to do so on his own.
The state is not required to support his "ethical beliefs."
Just give the guy vegan food ffs. Fucking Americans are so obsessed with making life as shitty as possible for anyone any chance they get.
For anyone? Ever heard of this guy?
Yes, I have, he's a horrible person, but treating him poorly will not undoe what he's done. And this goes far beyond this one person. The entire us """justice""" system is based around this.
Well then, by that logic, nothing bad should ever happen to anyone regardless of what they do, meaning they're now free to harm others as they wish.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you a troll or are you just thick as pig shit?
He should be forced to eat the organs and flesh of animals, nothing green whatsoever, only flesh until the end of his days. He's a monster so he should eat what they eat and not pretend he's a fucking saint.
Lmao, okay edgelord.
I'd personally consider it pretty cruel and inhumans to force someone to violate their own ethics on a daily basis.
Then write your elected official if you have one. I don't really care if he gets to live his best life.
If it were up to me I would force him to watch slaughterhouse of animals being slaughtered then force him to eat meat from the same kinds of animals killed in the video, if it were up to me, he would never touch greens again as long as he's alive.
They are required in most civilised nations. You're just too used to America's punishment focused prison system, look at the prisons in Scandinavian nations and how they treat their prisoners.
I don't think SBF needs rehabilitation or whatever the europeans call it. He needs a prison cell, 3 peanut butter sandwiches, and an hour of rec time... everyday... for twenty years.
Only flesh and milk for him. Don't feed his made up vegan ethics nonsense, he needs to be miserable and eating meat that he despises is the perfect punishment for a little bitch like him.
He didn't murder it rape anyone did he?
He robbed people of their savings. Imagine losing your retirement?
My god dude you’re like a walking parody. Please stop giving the US a bad name.
I have no shame in the believing prison can be used as a punishment. Shouldn't be the only thing it's used for, but it's what this fella needs.
Oh for sure, punishment is historically a super effective solution after all.
Huh? Recidivism? What’s that?
If SBF would reoffend I'd gladly pay the taxes to give him another twenty years of sandwiches. I don't care about healing this man.
Good for you, but I’d rather my money not be wasted on petty spite and draconian bullshit. I’d rather it actually go towards something useful, like rehabilitating people so they can be better and contribute to society.
Well, I'd rather my tax money not be wasted denying people justice just to satisfy authoritarian twits like yourself, but who am I to disagree with you? I'm just a lowly meat-eater while all he did was steal billions from innocent people, taking away their retirements, and we all know we lowly meat-eaters don't mean as much as the fluffy squirrels and singing birds you think are your friends.
So you agree that the is is solely about people wanting blood, solely out of spite, and doesn’t actually serve any tangible purpose? Glad we’ve got that figured out.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, my friend.
Holy shit, did you dig that strawman from the set of a bad 90's action movie or are you just happy to see me?
Did you know that doing what's right has its own intrinsic value and needs to be done for its own sake, and that not everything has to have a tangible, materialistic value? And that our inner, intrinsic, immaterial needs are just as valid as, if not more important in many ways, than our material ones?
By your logic, we shouldn't have space programs either, because those are largely about national prestige and dick-waving competitions at the U.N.
By your logic, we shouldn't have art either, because art doesn't have any real tangible value or purpose aside from what people assign to it. It literally only exists to make people feel better, yet here you are, arguing that anything with an immaterial purpose is therefore invalid.
Should we have no history either? History doesn't put food on our plates or pays our rent either, and when pressed, history buffs can give only nebulous, vague allusions to intrinsic, immaterial value their field provides, too, yet here you are.
So you agree that you're just concern trolling, hoping that by stereotyping anyone who demands justice as some 90's revenge movie stereotype that you can smear and discredit them, so you can do away with the notion of justice?
So you agree that you oppose justice?
No one even said anything about an eye for an eye. Denying someone vegan meals in prison isn't ripping their eyes out. Neither would imprisoning that fat fuck for life either. Even killing him wouldn't be that.
You may be opposed to the idea and the cause of justice, but the rest of the world is not, and you need to seriously sit down with yourself and seriously reflect on what it is you're doing and what you hope to accomplish here, because what you're doing is wrong.
Something being "right" is entirely subjective, and personally I don't think that punishing people without purpose fits that definition.
My logic is that if an action needlessly hurts another, it shouldn't be done. Not sure how art hurts others. The same goes for your space example. And your history example.
Also, you realize that what you did just then was a strawman... right? Because I never made the argument that nothing is worth doing without having some tangible result. I argued that we shouldn't hurt people for no other reason than spite.
Wtf is concern trolling? Lmao just another weird label to dismiss opinions that differ from your own? Gotcha.
...you know that "an eye for an eye" doesn't mean literally just eyes, right? It means that revenge leads to nothing but further suffering.
Are you sure about that? Because the rest of the modern world doesn't have capital punishment. It's literally only us and some 3rd world countries. Clearly people are moving away from barbarism and draconian, ineffective punishments.
He stole 8 billion dollars from ordinary people. Maybe when he's rehabilitated you can let him manage your money.
You realize what rehabilitation means, right?
No one is obligated to or wants to rehabilitate him or people like him. We respect their agency to make their own choices, and in return they accept the deleterious consequences if they choose to do horrific shit. Like this fuck you're using to push your agenda.
Lmao who are you speaking for? No one wants to rehabilitate people because you say so? Who is this “we”?
And christ, man, accusing me of pushing an agenda? How cliche can you get? This is literally just my opinion - me voicing it isn’t “pushing my agenda”.
Hell yeah
Can the state require you to eat the body or bodily fluids of someone you affirm has rights to bodily autonomy, someone we know to be wholly innocent because they lack agency?
No.
They're required to make the offer. I believe the prison where he's incarcerated has even offered him the option of vegetarian meals to complement his PB sandwiches.
I think that's a very generous offer that's he's used his agency to reject because he's a fool.
That doesn't necessarily work at all. Vegans don't eat food that contain or are prepared with any dairy or egg product. It's very likely all of their vegetarian meals are not Vegan accessible.
Sounds like he will continue to enjoy peanut butter then :)
In case it wasn't clear, you're not corresponding with someone who cares if SBF is allowed to eat a vegan diet in prison.
It's the precedent set for prisoners in general that you should have a problem with. He just so happens to be the one in the public eye that is affected right now. Forcing him to either go against his beliefs or be nutritionally deficient is not okay. Your feelings about SBF are not at issue. We can end this chain on that note.
Currently only religious beliefs are supported by the prison industry. If he couldn't eat kosher, for example, I would agree that that's a problem.
What if he was pescaterian? Or on a Keto diet? It's this zone that I don't think the state needs to entertain. SBF happens to be vegan and vegan is in the region in my mind.
I guess my question is: Is there a limit to the extent which the state should go to satisfy your dietary preferences?
Veganism is not strictly a dietary preference. It is a stance against all forms of exploitation and commodification of animals. Comparing Keto or pescetarianism to ethical veganism is unsound. Veganism is about animal rights, bodily autonomy, & consent.
Are you sure SBF is an ethical vegan and not a dietary vegan?
Ethical vegans tend to describe people who are simplying choose a diet without animal products as plant based eaters. So that would not necessarily be Vegan as they could be exploitative in all other manner than food. Of the people who don't want to associate with veganism, they often also refer to their diet as plant-based rather than Vegan.
So while we can't know for sure if SFB is an ethical Vegan, the fact that he'd self-described as Vegan rather than as a plant-based eater is a very good indication of his beliefs. I am not aware of any text describing the particulars of his belief, but I think it's best to assume in good faith since he uses that exact word.
You're trying, I like it. The thing is, no one calls themselves "plant-based eaters." It's too many syllables...
Homie there are absolutely people who think vegans are crazy and eat plant-based. They don't want to be described as vegan. A lot of them are in the Gwyneth Paltrow goop crowd, you know, the crazy holistic people that like incense and hot yoga and shit. People who really really like the word journey when they describe things changing in their lives. People who think eating plant based is a personal choice just like they claim eating meat is a personal choice. They do it for health and some weird hippie superiority thing. Sometimes because its what God originally wanted people to eat in the Garden of Eden.
Those people exist. Idk why you're suggesting I'm lying.
Veganism is not a dietary preference. Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose. Which happens to include food.
I don't think so, but it should, he totally deserves it.
Theft from animals is unethical, while theft from humans is ethical (based on his actions and your logic). From this we can extrapolate that humans aren't animals at all.
Thanks SBF! That clear up a lot.
I explained this elsewhere but stealing from someone's body is completely incongruous from using other's funds.
You mean "stealing", which is incongruent with autonomy in every sense. I won't make excuses for meat eaters if you don't make excuses for scam artists.
Okay. Lets try again. Stealing people's finances is not the same as stealing from their anatomy. I dont know know why you think I care about SBF specifically.
I'm all for comparing and contrasting the details. But I am speaking vaguely here; all theft is bad.
Let's let the courts argue the specifics. I'm just here to say that all theft is bad theft.