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.

  • Nora@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    And? That’s one organizations definition, and the reason they say “all animals” is not because they give jellyfish moral value, but because most nonvegans only respect the rights of humans and a few animals like dogs and cats. So we say “all animals” to generally say we are being morally consistent. Jellyfish and oysters just happen to be edge cases of animals existing without sentience.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Jellyfish and oysters just happen to be edge cases of animals existing without sentience.

      you can’t prove this.

      • Nora@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        well they don’t have fucking brains lol. why would an oyster evolve the capacity to suffer and fear and desire to live when they literally don’t control where they move? it would be a waste of energy. an oyster’s nervous system is about as complex as your finger…

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          why would an oyster evolve the capacity to suffer and fear and desire to live when they literally don’t control where they move?

          there is no proof any nonhuman animal has a “desire to live” because there isn’t proof they understand personal mortality.

          as for whether they have the capacity to suffer, which is all that sentience really seems to require, you can’t prove that they don’t have the capacity to suffer because you can’t prove a negative. the best you can say is that you don’t think there is enough evidence to support a claim that they ARE sentient.

          • Nora@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            if you saw a human from a tribe who spoke a language you would never understand, how do you know they feel pain and want to live? if you kick a dog, how do you know the dog didn’t enjoy it? maybe people who are asleep dont feel pain or want to live. lets just eat people in comas, or who speak other languages, and lets beat dogs because its so unclear whether they like it or not

            Animals must just run from danger because the wind pushes them that way. Wonder why dogs wag their tails when they see humans. Strange. Nah no proof they have desires or fears

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              Animals must just run from danger because the wind pushes them that way. Wonder why dogs wag their tails when they see humans. Strange. Nah no proof they have desires or fears

              none of this is proof they understand personal mortality, which is the crux if this disagreement.

              • Nora@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 years ago

                No it’s not the crux. Avoiding danger to protect their lives is pretty good proof.

                A man follows a woman and she runs away.

                The man: “she could still wanna have sex”

                Maybe you’d be better seeing all the animals that mourn deaths of others.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Avoiding danger to protect their lives is pretty good proof.

                  you’re observing behavior and assuming cognition. you need to prove the cognition, and behavior is evidence but not proof.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Maybe you’d be better seeing all the animals that mourn deaths of others.

                  mourning death of others is not proof that an animal know it, itself, might die.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 years ago

              maybe sentience or wanting to live aren’t metrics we should use as the basis of our morality.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      the reason they say “all animals” is not because they give jellyfish moral value

      prove this. please find me any proof this is true.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 years ago

          this is anecdotal, and you’ve already said you don’t agree with the vegan society, so i don’t see any reason to believe your interpretation of their very explicit claim over what they actually say.

          • Nora@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 years ago

            i didnt say i don’t agree with them. I’m saying your are overanalyzing the definition. this whole argument is opinion, everything is going to be anecdotal…

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 years ago

              i’m reading the words they wrote. you’re saying “they didn’t mean the words they wrote”

              • Nora@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                2 years ago

                you are misusing a definition. its like using newtonian physics for large scale systems. newton wasnt wrong but his equations aren’t great for talking about galaxies and black holes.

                  • Nora@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    wow. you already made it clear you dont understand what evidence is for or how things are proven. its no surprise you dont understand science and theories. newton was not wrong. his physics are for a different scope than einstein physics.