476
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world

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's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] dezmd@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] dx1@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So you aren’t killing the plants and vegetables you eat as a vegan?

Friendly tip to everyone on the internet. If you find yourself writing this, please shut the fuck up.

[-] monarchsonvacay@adding.space 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, can't be out here forcing cultists to think about what they're actually saying

[-] dx1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] monarchsonvacay@adding.space -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] dx1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 entirely 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.

this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
476 points (93.9% liked)

News

23627 readers
3812 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS