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
Wait I'm legitimately confused about this.
I agree with you in the first paragraph.
I'm confused about what you mean by animals suffering because someone is in prison. Don't they suffer regardless of if someone is in prison? Like, the animal would die and be eaten, regardless of where the meat is sent.
I'm pro animal rights and all that btw, I just don't get the connection you are making here.
The meals will (I assume) be allocated on inmate numbers, so the animal will be reared, killed, transported, then thrown in the trash because someone doesn't want to eat it.
More generally this is the weird 'opt out' culture of food, where vegan is considered the exceptional position, which is kinda stupid, in my opinion.
Why would the default be the diet of a small minority?
Because humans don't need meat to survive.
Humans don't need anything but nutrient slop to survive, but the prisons aim for something better largely because it keeps riots down.
Sure, but you could e.g. start with slop and then let people request something different. That's what I meant by 'default'. Perhaps there's a better world?
I sure there's a fancy word in psychology, but it's like if everyone is given choice x automatically, then it shouldn't be a surprise that x seems to be what people prefer.
I've noticed a similar thing in the Subway sandwich store: there are approximately the same number of vegetables and meats available, but if you look at the menu there is just one 'veggie' option, and a multitude of different meat combinations.
You could, but the only reason to do so would be to accommodate a small minority's ethical dietary decisions, which is the opposite of a default.
No one's going to chose the slop so there's no point in having it.
As for subway, their menu is largely determined by sales. They do trial other options occasionally, and the ones that are popular stay.
Here's the definition of default I'm using (from Google):
My argument is that the default meal including meat is what makes including meat the most popular choice, not the other way around.
It's not weird that it specifies a computer program, the use of the term to mean the standard option comes from computing. It's the value chosen when the computer defaults, as in fails to pay it's debt (in this case debt being the value it was looking for).
I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that people prefer meat because it's the default option and not the other way around.
They're saying that animals suffer because people eat them. That, therefore, all humans should be forced to a vegan diet.
They did not say that at all. They said, if you are a vegan and consider animal slaughter a form of torture for animals and you are for some reason imprisoned, is it reasonable punishment to force you to accept this torture of a third party (the animals) on your behalf?
Ah ok, I get what you are saying now. Got it.
I think the missing link is that the prison warden doesn't even think about the animals - they just think, this is food, eat the food. They aren't intentionally causing animal suffering, its just a build in part of the system that society as a whole has accepted as normal. So someone not eating the food is just being annoying, in their eyes, regardless of their reasons.
Is this ethical? Fundamentally no, because it accepts animal suffering as a premise. But it makes sense why the prison isn't accommodating them.
that is what you believe they think, it is not at all what they said.