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.
BonfireOvDreams
joined 1 year ago
Yes this chain was very revealing. I've done the same. No need to interact with that ilk. Kudos for humoring his dumb takes long enough that it would encourage me to do the same.
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.
I explained this elsewhere but stealing from someone's body is completely incongruous from using other's funds.
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.
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.
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.
has even offered him the option of vegetarian meals
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.
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.
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?
I concede, we can't know for sure. They do still got to get him a b12 supp as well. Could be getting that too.
Edit: In retrospect, even with potatoes I think he would still be vitamin A, D, & calcium deficient. He'd need some veggies and fortified soy milk to complete the needs. Still, not a big ask.
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.