494
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
494 points (100.0% liked)
News
23271 readers
2439 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd personally consider it pretty cruel and inhumans to force someone to violate their own ethics on a daily basis.
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?
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”?
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.
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.