Yeah, that’s what most people fail to grok. This summer, 2023, will be the coolest summer for the rest of your life. In frightfully few years, weather catastrophes will be as commonplace as gas station stickups, and all of the ‘modern conveniences’ will be doubtful at best.
The internet will be frequently and increasingly unplugged, highways will buckle, flying will be only for oligarchs, hospitals will be amateur efforts, Hollywood will be in flames, pro baseball will be untenable, and wild hoards will roam what used to be the cities, searching for food.
In this mix, it’s laughable to imagine there’ll be full, stable, well-trained staffing at nuclear power plants.
Yeah cooling them with river water won’t work in the summer pretty soon and since it takes almost 10 years to build it really isn’t a reasonable choice if you see how many renewables you can rollout in that time with that money
Unsurprising. $78k/yr comes out to $2194/mo take home pay per Smartasset's calculator. Average rent is well over $1k/mo with no signs of going down any time soon. Landlords frequently demand potential renters have an income of 3x the rent. Gotta live somewhere.
Apparently I'm stupid but I'm too tired to fix it rn so I will just leave my shame up here for all to see. My point is being alive is expensive and bad math or no I'm still not surprised to see this.
Edit again because I'm also too stupid to do a strikethrough correctly even with a formatting bar right there. FML and F this phone too, I'm going to bed
They may have taken the "semi-monthly take home pay" to be monthly instead, and the calculator counts after taxes.
So it's twice what they think it is, and four times what average rent is. You can change it to monthly, and it's more like $4,500 depending on where you live.
The calculator defaults to semi-monthly and I think the original commenter didn't change it. Also, it defaults to your current location so the take-home will be different for everyone running the calculator (because taxes). $78k is $6500 a month BEFORE TAXES.
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.
He has been Vegan since at least April 2021. It’s not a circus show. The dude’s ethical beliefs in regards to Veganism are not in question. They need to be respected.
He doesn’t eat humans or variations of incarcerated pregnant ladies’ nonconsensually acquired breast milk. He respects them at least the same actually.
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.
That’s cool dawg. You can support the shit bag that ripped off thousands of people for billions of dollars if it helps you sleep at night. I don’t believe for a second someone that messed up can have a good thought. So he may say he’s vegan, but I doubt it.
I support the right to abstain from putting murdered or otherwise non-consenting conscious beings bodily fluid inside your body, irrespective of person. No need to mischaracterize.
You’re right, I’m not being fair. Look I can get behind vegans being given vegan options. I even think he should have vegan options. But for this piece of shit in particular, I’m not gonna cry for him waiting for those options.
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.
I also believe your first comment is correct and the US prison system is quite messed up to say the least. However I’m being very pragmatic here and I’m not going to shed a tear if he personally only has bread and water to eat. if anything it will do him some good. the problem is that this is applied to every person in jail or most jails.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Homie there are absolutely people who think vegans are crazy and eat plant-based. They don’t want to be described as vegan. A lot of them are in the Gwyneth Paltrow goop crowd, you know, the crazy holistic people that like incense and hot yoga and shit. People who really really like the word journey when they describe things changing in their lives. People who think eating plant based is a personal choice just like they claim eating meat is a personal choice. They do it for health and some weird hippie superiority thing. Sometimes because its what God originally wanted people to eat in the Garden of Eden.
Those people exist. Idk why you’re suggesting I’m lying.
Well, none of them are here in this thread, so it’s obvious you’re just lying and dredging up excuses to help SBF avoid consequences for his actions. You’re a despicable piece of shit – though what can we expect from someone who prefers the company of snakes to human beings?
Veganism is not a dietary preference. Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose. Which happens to include food.
They are required in most civilised nations. You’re just too used to America’s punishment focused prison system, look at the prisons in Scandinavian nations and how they treat their prisoners.
I don’t think SBF needs rehabilitation or whatever the europeans call it. He needs a prison cell, 3 peanut butter sandwiches, and an hour of rec time… everyday… for twenty years.
Good for you, but I’d rather my money not be wasted on petty spite and draconian bullshit. I’d rather it actually go towards something useful, like rehabilitating people so they can be better and contribute to society.
No one is obligated to or wants to rehabilitate him or people like him. We respect their agency to make their own choices, and in return they accept the deleterious consequences if they choose to do horrific shit. Like this fuck you’re using to push your agenda.
Lmao who are you speaking for? No one wants to rehabilitate people because you say so? Who is this “we”?
And christ, man, accusing me of pushing an agenda? How cliche can you get? This is literally just my opinion - me voicing it isn’t “pushing my agenda”.
My guy, we need only read the thread to see that all of you brigading and concern trolling are in the minority. It’s a fact. Specifically in this case because Sam Bankman-Fried is the perfect example of the two-tiered legal system we have in the U.S., a different set of rules and consequences based on wealth. The only reason he’s even in jail suffering the way he should be is because he started stealing from other rich people.
And christ, man, accusing me of pushing an agenda? How cliche can you get?
Oh, excuse you?
So you agree that the is is solely about people wanting blood, solely out of spite, and doesn’t actually serve any tangible purpose? Glad we’ve got that figured out.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, my friend.
You literally are out here parroting one-liners you memorized from shitty revenge movies and you’re going to accuse me of pandering to cliches? Get the fuck out of here.
You’re in here pushing evil, anti-justice apologetics to once again deny the American people the justice they deserve after so long and it’s obvious. You don’t care about what’s right or what’s good for Americans or what’s good for morality or the world, you only care about what makes you personally feel better. And I won’t fucking let you get what you want.
we need only read the thread to see that all of you brigading and concern trolling are in the minority. It’s a fact
One might consider the fact that until this very moment, my comments were consistently the most upvoted of the two of us. And that somehow on a two day old post all of your comments got upvoted three times, while mine were all downvoted three times. But hey, I’ll just assume that that’s a coincidence.
Either way, what matters is that most of the top comments are advocating for getting this guy a proper vegan selection. So clearly it’s not so simply “a fact”.
Also, did you seriously pull a comment from a discussion I was having with an entirely different person? Did you stalk my account for that? That’s bizarre, but what’s even more bizarre is that you think the quote “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” comes from a revenge movie lmao.
evil, anti-justice apologetics
It’s literally just empathy - calling it “evil” sounds like projection to me. Especially when you’re the one advocating for further harm, and trying to justify it with mob mentality.
you only care about what makes you personally feel better
Again, just projection. The only reason to punish people further is to make the rest of us feel better. Someone “getting what they deserve” is cathartic for the masses, and for no other reason than pure spite. It accomplishes nothing. What I believe doesn’t make me feel better - how would it? It’s far harder to be empathetic towards bad people than it is to simply view them as less than human and move on.
It’s literally just empathy - calling it “evil” sounds like projection to me. Especially when you’re the one advocating for further harm, and trying to justify it with mob mentality.
Imagine calling apologizing for, defending and using as a political tool to demand no one be punished for anything, denying humanity justice, empathy.
You absolutely are disgusting and vile. Get away from me.
Well, I’d rather my tax money not be wasted denying people justice just to satisfy authoritarian twits like yourself, but who am I to disagree with you? I’m just a lowly meat-eater while all he did was steal billions from innocent people, taking away their retirements, and we all know we lowly meat-eaters don’t mean as much as the fluffy squirrels and singing birds you think are your friends.
So you agree that the is is solely about people wanting blood, solely out of spite, and doesn’t actually serve any tangible purpose? Glad we’ve got that figured out.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, my friend.
Holy shit, did you dig that strawman from the set of a bad 90’s action movie or are you just happy to see me?
Did you know that doing what’s right has its own intrinsic value and needs to be done for its own sake, and that not everything has to have a tangible, materialistic value? And that our inner, intrinsic, immaterial needs are just as valid as, if not more important in many ways, than our material ones?
By your logic, we shouldn’t have space programs either, because those are largely about national prestige and dick-waving competitions at the U.N.
By your logic, we shouldn’t have art either, because art doesn’t have any real tangible value or purpose aside from what people assign to it. It literally only exists to make people feel better, yet here you are, arguing that anything with an immaterial purpose is therefore invalid.
Should we have no history either? History doesn’t put food on our plates or pays our rent either, and when pressed, history buffs can give only nebulous, vague allusions to intrinsic, immaterial value their field provides, too, yet here you are.
So you agree that you’re just concern trolling, hoping that by stereotyping anyone who demands justice as some 90’s revenge movie stereotype that you can smear and discredit them, so you can do away with the notion of justice?
So you agree that you oppose justice?
No one even said anything about an eye for an eye. Denying someone vegan meals in prison isn’t ripping their eyes out. Neither would imprisoning that fat fuck for life either. Even killing him wouldn’t be that.
You may be opposed to the idea and the cause of justice, but the rest of the world is not, and you need to seriously sit down with yourself and seriously reflect on what it is you’re doing and what you hope to accomplish here, because what you’re doing is wrong.
Did you know that doing what’s right has its own intrinsic value and needs to be done for its own sake, and that not everything has to have a tangible, materialistic value?
Something being “right” is entirely subjective, and personally I don’t think that punishing people without purpose fits that definition.
By your logic, we shouldn’t have art either, because art doesn’t have any real tangible value or purpose aside from what people assign to it
My logic is that if an action needlessly hurts another, it shouldn’t be done. Not sure how art hurts others. The same goes for your space example. And your history example.
Also, you realize that what you did just then was a strawman… right? Because I never made the argument that nothing is worth doing without having some tangible result. I argued that we shouldn’t hurt people for no other reason than spite.
So you agree that you’re just concern trolling
Wtf is concern trolling? Lmao just another weird label to dismiss opinions that differ from your own? Gotcha.
No one even said anything about an eye for an eye. Denying someone vegan meals in prison isn’t ripping their eyes out
…you know that “an eye for an eye” doesn’t mean literally just eyes, right? It means that revenge leads to nothing but further suffering.
but the rest of the world is not
Are you sure about that? Because the rest of the modern world doesn’t have capital punishment. It’s literally only us and some 3rd world countries. Clearly people are moving away from barbarism and draconian, ineffective punishments.
Something being “right” is entirely subjective, and personally I don’t think that punishing people without purpose fits that definition.
Yet here you are, pushing and needling and imposing your will upon others, demanding other people give up core values that make humanity what it is because you don’t want to accept that what you’re advocating for is wrong and harmful.
My logic is that if an action needlessly hurts another, it shouldn’t be done. Not sure how art hurts others. The same goes for your space example. And your history example.
No, your logic consists of a long list of thought-terminating cliches you watched in movies or played in video games. You don’t think. You haven’t thought about what you’re truly asking for and you haven’t considered at all how it will harm other people because you simply don’t care about all that. You only care about yourself. And your snakes.
You know why the suicide rate for rape victims is so high, for example? Because of evil monsters like you who protect their rapists from justice with the same tactics.
Also, you realize that what you did just then was a strawman… right? Because I never made the argument that nothing is worth doing without having some tangible result. I argued that we shouldn’t hurt people for no other reason than spite.
Actually, you are, because justice, like art and history and love, is a thing whose benefit is moral and intangible, and here you are demanding its repeal without one single fuck given for the consequences of it. It is the moral backbone that makes all social relations possible. Without it, you have no humanity. Yet here you are, demanding we give up our humanity because you saw a documentary about Sweden once, played The Last Of Us 2 and decided that was all you needed to know.
Are you sure about that? Because the rest of the modern world doesn’t have capital punishment.
Here’s some more blatant strawmanning from you. It’s awfully telling you equate capital punishment with justice in a thread specifically about a man in jail and not being executed.
But what little can we expect from someone who doesn’t even respect his fellow man enough to respect the value and necessity of justice?
Yet here you are, pushing and needling and imposing your will upon others
Nope, this is just my opinion. Pretty sure I made that clear earlier. If you feel that your core values are at risk just by talking to me, maybe that says more about you than anything. Maybe your core values aren’t as set in stone as you thought they were.
No, your logic consists of…
Nope, my logic consists of what I said it did. That’s my core belief, and everything I’ve said in this conversation stems from it. Also not sure what your obsession is with movies, and how they somehow dictate my beliefs? Seems a bit random tbh.
You know why the suicide rate for rape victims is so high, for example? Because of evil monsters like you who protect their rapists from justice with the same tactics.
This would actually be your ideology at fault, no? After all, America’s justice system better fits your ideals than mine. So any faults it has, like suicide rates and the number of rape victims, would be on you not me.
Now, if a country that fit my beliefs had these massive issues you’d have a point. But unfortunately for you, these issues stem from your own.
Yet here you are, demanding we give up our humanity
This is the most melodramatic thing I’ve ever heard. Tbh this whole part of your comment is pretty crazy, I’m honestly starting to wonder if I’m just being trolled.
It’s awfully telling you equate capital punishment with justice
With your version of justice, not my own. Capital punishment, just like what’s happening here, is needless punishment for the sole purpose of cathartic spite.
My point is that the rest of the world is moving on from this draconian mindset. There’s a reason most make fun of America’s prison systems, as most of the world prioritizes rehabilitation while we focus on needless punishment. You don’t have to agree with that, but clearly the modern world in large part does.
Also it’s not strawmanning you goof, I’m not saying that capital punishment was your whole argument.
But what little can we expect from someone who doesn’t even respect his fellow man enough to respect the value and necessity of justice?
Rich coming from the guy who wants to needlessly punish his “fellow man” for no other reason than you seem to enjoy it. Does the idea of someone getting justice make you feel good?
I’d rather all people get the help they need. I’d argue that that’s a much better example of respect than whatever you’ve conjured up.
Edit: Also I’ve never seen a documentary about Sweden or played TLOU2 lol, weird assumptions.
Only flesh and milk for him. Don’t feed his made up vegan ethics nonsense, he needs to be miserable and eating meat that he despises is the perfect punishment for a little bitch like him.
Yes, I have, he’s a horrible person, but treating him poorly will not undoe what he’s done. And this goes far beyond this one person. The entire us “”“justice”“” system is based around this.
He should be forced to eat the organs and flesh of animals, nothing green whatsoever, only flesh until the end of his days. He’s a monster so he should eat what they eat and not pretend he’s a fucking saint.
If it were up to me I would force him to watch slaughterhouse of animals being slaughtered then force him to eat meat from the same kinds of animals killed in the video, if it were up to me, he would never touch greens again as long as he’s alive.
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.
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.
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.
I think the true argument is that dietary preference is a bit of a slippery slope. One could easily claim that they abide by a diet of only steak, truffles and lobster.
Obviously that is not feasible for a prison kitchen to fulfil. I do agree though that an effort could be made. I’m not sure if religious preference is catered to (no pork f.i.) and I could even see a point of not serving meat at all.
But the bottom line is that you can’t let the prisoner make food demands like that and be considered unethical if not fulfilled. Medically there’s not really a case here. Water and bread sounds a bit brutal, but it’s not likely that he has no choice at all, it’s also a bit of an act that his legal team will no doubt will utilise in court to claim ‘inhuman circumstances’
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.
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”?
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.
Theft from animals is unethical, while theft from humans is ethical (based on his actions and your logic). From this we can extrapolate that humans aren’t animals at all.
You mean “stealing”, which is incongruent with autonomy in every sense. I won’t make excuses for meat eaters if you don’t make excuses for scam artists.
Okay. Lets try again. Stealing people’s finances is not the same as stealing from their anatomy. I dont know know why you think I care about SBF specifically.
Would you think the same if a mass murderer was requesting vegan food? For example the girl that killed new born babies on purpose, would you also be like: “poor girl, give her a vegan menu!”
Yes. A convicted murderer sitting in prison is still a human being with human rights. Fuck this dehumanizing system that only knows punishment. It’s no wonder that the recidivism rate in the US is one of the highest in the world.
What problem does feeding a mass murderer dead animals solve exactly? Do you not think it’s disrespectful to animals to treat them as fodder for petty vengeance?
It’s obvious that’s what’s happening. Vegans are coming out in droves arguing people shouldn’t ever be put in jail simply because SBF is a vegan and they care more about their own than anyone else. They’re circling the wagons around this guy, and they never considered that he could just be lying, exaggerating or purposefully playing to them to get them to do exactly what they’re doing.
What they’re doing isn’t accomplishing any good. Neither are you when you defend them. All it’s causing is discord.
Vegans are coming out in droves arguing people shouldn’t ever be put in jail simply because SBF is a vegan and they care more about their own than anyone else.
You’re literally the guy who said you don’t believe in rights but think people in jail should still be able to be vegan, and to another guy you admitted you don’t know what should be done with people if there is no jail. You even went so far as to defend revenge while the rest of your little gang of trolls accused everyone else of being subhuman, violent, bloodthirsty savages for even thinking other people deserve to be punished. Other people of your little tribe or whatever were even arguing with CSA survivors because of it.
You need to sit down and drink yourself a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up. And take the other awful jackasses of yours out with you.
You’re literally the guy who said you don’t believe in rights but think people in jail should still be able to be vegan, and to another guy you admitted you don’t know what should be done with people if there is no jail. You even went so far as to defend revenge
No, people just have a principle and are applying it evenly. Even if he’s lying about being vegan, there’s not really a downside to giving him vegan food. It seems as if your argument rests on some notion that it hurts everyone’s ego or pride or something to grant this request, because it certainly doesn’t make a material difference to any of us. And you’re seriously misreading people’s arguments in this thread. Did your wife leave you for a vegan or something?
No, they really are doing nothing but aiding and abetting a con man because he appealed to their pet issue to get them to do it. He already has a vegan option, it’s called a PBJ. Part of being in jail means you don’t get the choices you’d get out on the outside, and part of life in jail is accepting that. If he didn’t want to suffer, he shouldn’t have stolen billions from innocent people – or at least went so far as to steal from other rich people.
You’re just not listening because you, yourself likely are a vegan. And you don’t want to admit you’re getting played.
By the same token you’d say someone doesn’t get the choice to drink clean water or piss in a real toilet. You have the right to follow an obviously extant and relatively mainstream philosophy such as veganism when you’re detained and it’s not aiding and abetting or being played to just give him some potatoes or something. In fact you’ve made me laugh.
It’s not about the prisoner. Why are you victimizing animals to feed the other prisoners in the first place, but then acting like it’s unreasonable not to do it?
The average reservation wage of U.S. jobs seekers — the lowest annual pay workers would accept for a new job — climbed to a record high of $78,645 in July, up from $72,873 at the same time last year, according to the survey.
Combined with:
Yet the average full-time wage offer received in the past four months was $69,475, itself a marked increase from $60,764 last July.
So that's a ~13.5% increase in full-time wage offers vs a ~7.5% increase in ask. This seems like a non-story then, yes? Inflation has pushed wages higher which has pushed expectations higher. However, the offer increase is higher than the ask increase so... Am I missing something here?
I agree it’s a non story. I mean, take out the numbers and the headline is pretty much “employees want more money and employers don’t want to give it”.
But that's my point, employers are giving it (kinda, I'll circle-back to this). The full-time offer has gone up $9k in the last 12 months. Contrasted with the ask that has only gone up $6k in that same time-frame.
Now, is $70k a livable wage? Hard to say without a more specific location. In bumfuck Alabama, probably. In LA, hell no.
I’m a robotics and mechatronics engineer in the automotive manufacturing space.
A few things I will never bend on, no matter how good the tech gets: Mechanical braking system Mechanical link from steering wheel to tires Manual door locks and handles Mechanical trunk/fuel door releases
Things I prefer to be mechanical: Fuel pump Carburetor Timing
Personally I drive a 1970 c20. It has a carb with throttle body injection, and electric pump with mechanical back up. An HEI distributor with electronic advance that still works if the electronics fail. I love the convenience of tech but it needs a robust back up.
This was so confusing at first. “OK a coca cola place shut down, less drinks around, less promotion of unhealthy behavior”… “OK wait, no… A cocaine… Plant? People were getting cocaine all over the place?”… “OK no wait, wtf is a coke plant, this is about fuels, wtf kind of fuel is coke”
Clickbait is a headline or thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and entice users to click on a link. Clickbait is often deceptive, sensationalized, or misleading. It can include exaggerated claims or leaving out key information.
What you have posted is the literal definition of clickbait.
So what “exaggerated claim” did it make or “key information” was left out? Because the article goes into great detail on the subject - civilization collapse - that it brings up.
“In this type of plant, coal is heated until it turns into coke, an ingredient used to make steel. When heated, coal releases carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants.”
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.