Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Co-Founder Peter Sunde Is a Free Man Again
jones_supa writes Former Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde was released from prison this morning. Peter is expected to take some time off to spend with family and loved ones before returning to the normal grind. He was arrested in late May this year. Despite being accused of non-violent crimes, Peter was transferred to a high-security unit. His time in prison is described as being tough. There was no concern for high values such as a vegan diet or even proper treatment of depression. Peter also lost 15 kg of weight. After the experience he tweeted, "My body just got re-united with my soul and mind, the parts of me that matters and that never can be held hostage."
A vegan diet isn't about being hipster, it can be about moral choices.
If you went to jail and all they served was dog meat, would you eat it? How about insects?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
If your not depressed about being in prison you have a problem. prison is not supposed to have concern for your high values. That is why its a punishment.
You would if you didn't want to die.
Also I wouldn't be citing moral choices when you're committing actions society as deemed criminal and will result in jail.
What if you don't like being in prison for moral reasons, do they accommodate you?
Perhaps because of moral reasons you do things that don't land you in jail?
Keep in mind I'm not saying he should have been jailed, or that the laws are correct. I'm just telling you how it is.
Vegetarian sister lost tons of weight because they couldn't just give her a damn apple. She had to find other inmates willing to trade their portion of veggies for her meat.
So this is what you get when you threaten the Hollywood Moguls that control the government....welcome to 1984
I am troubled by the no concern for his vegan diet. No concern would imply he was routinely served meat with no deviation from the regular prison fare. I don’t know about Sweden, but it seems there would be plenty of vegetarian diet dishes available for religious reasons to prisoners. If he was offered vegetarian fare, perhaps that suffices, its not like we can accommodate every dietary request. My religion only allows me to eat panda or human flesh certainly wouldn’t fly.
The question here is whether any reasonable accommodation was made. Without more details it is hard to judge. Disturbing if true though. This would imply you have to have a major religion to back up your moral choices in life – which to me is not religious freedom.
Letter To Iran
Keep believing what you want, it's won't make it true.
A vegan diet isn't about being hipster, it can be about moral choices.
If you went to jail and all they served was dog meat, would you eat it? How about insects?
You'd probably eat it.
As for moral choices, I think all life is precious, from microbes to plants to things with faces. I also know that outside of chemolithotropes, we get our energy by killing and eating living things.
Having reasoned that becoming a breatharian isn't practical. I rest assured that our state of matter is just what it is, and we are stuck in it. I eat what I am physically designed to eat, and any "vegan" who is claiming moral superiority, but happily slaughters and devours plant life is just a hypocrite.
IOW, eat what you like, but don't act like you're superior because of it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What is it with governments and putting hackers in high security prisons and solitary confinement?
These people are computer nerds not violent criminals. There was no need to put Kevin Mitnick in solitary, no need to put Swartz in solitary, and there was no need to put Sunde in to high security. This is pretty clearly an abuse of power by the government, and there should be a way to stop it.
Seems strange indeed. If you're vegan for moral reasons (even if bluefoxlucid seems to think being vegan is something only hipsters do to set themselves apart) it's not protected, but if you believe in a magical being living in the sky, you're protected.
That's not just a lack of religious freedom, that's protecting the idiots.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
First ... Post! Does anyone do that anymore?
I guess you didn't get the memo yet that /. switched their development team from Basic to C (to coincide with Beta), where array indices now start at 0. And there's another post that is the 0'th post....
Better luck next time.
People have their own individual reasons for being vegans.
It's not about "moral choices"
No? Why not? Eating other sentient beings or not is a moral choice. And not an easy choice if you are sensitive to these issues.
it's about conformity to a non-mainstream ideal so as to set oneself apart and produce a feeling of independence.
BINGO!!! You hit all the words on my psycho-babble bingo card!! What do I win?
I think we're avoiding the correct question.
When you are sent to jail, you lose some rights. Would the ability to eat specific types of food (or not eat them thereof) belong to the rights you lose or not?
If it does, then this is a non-issue. If it doesn't, then we have a problem.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Its difficult to prescribe biblical retribution in countries that take a rational approach to criminal incarceration. While in the united states we use the tongue-in-cheek phase 'correctional facility' sweden and other more evolved contries take a more pragmatic approach and actually work to 'correct' the bad behavior by investigating causes and potential solutions. 8 months for piracy is still a little harsh, and 8 months in a maximum security facility should serve as a clear warning to people like Assange. American interests can absolutely butter the courts into whatever they feel works best, including a nearly 1 year stint alongside murderers and violent offenders for a victimless crime that largely has no rehabilitative prescription as the sites in question are search engines, not content providers, much to the entertainment industries virulent protest.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Would a vegan eat an animal who dies of old age? Or in an accident? How about roadkill?
Cicadas, for example. They have a very short life span (outside of the tree trunks) and are edible immediately after death (if cooked right).
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Like being from Vega? What are you doing on Earth anyway?
According to Sunde the reason is incompetence;
excerpt from http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/article19207648.ab
"Jag är vegan och har gått ner sju kilo på en månad. Viktminskningen beror på den undermåliga maten. De få grönsaker som serveras saknar nödvändiga vitaminer och mineraler. Vid klagomål har jag fått höra att de inte behöver ge mig annan mat än den vanliga, då min diet varken är religiös eller medicinsk, trots att lagen är tydlig med att vegetarisk kost ska tillhandahållas. Problemet är att lagen inte följs särskilt ofta."
"I'm a vegan and have lost even kilos in a month. The weight loss is due to the substandard meals. The few vegetables which are served lack the necessary vitamins and minerals. When I complained I was told that they didn't need to afford me any special accommodation as my diet was neither religious nor medicinal, even if the law is clear that vegetarian diet shall be offered. The problem is that the law is often ignored".
my translation is kind of shit but it's apparent that it was a combination of incompetent and/or vindictive/uncaring prison officials.
I do understand that there are limits on when and why a prison can supply specialized diets. But the depression issue is much more serious. Obviously the prison systems are designed to create depression or worse. And that is flat out stupid. Many mental hospitals play the same game. People are given little or nothing to do that is fun or stress relieving. And much like many convicts many mental patients have nothing in life to look forward to as well. So the convicts become much harder to handle and much more prone to commit serious crimes upon release. After years of mental torture many inmates hate society so much that they are not only walking time bombs but they also seek revenge on all of society. The US prison system and jail systems can take a person with a minor problem and grow them into a monster. Small examples are obvious. A person on probabtion or parole will be required to tell a future employer that they are a criminal. Jobs are hard to get and revealing that you are a criminal makes employment next to impossible. Th ex inmate is not going to starve and rot. if he can't get work he will turn back to crime. Even child support creates many criminals. A judge assigns too much child support and a full time job will not leave a man with enough money to survive. If he doesn't pay he goes to jail. He will turn to crime. Now his exwife and child will get zero support. When he gets out of prison he can not apply for any bennefits in some states so having nothing and being unemployable his only chance is crime. The system is creating criminals and creating some serious hatred within the inmates. These issues would not exist if the system did not want them to exist. To some people a convict means money and lucrative supply contracts and therefore the system seeks to create criminals. Yes we are that corrupt.
Was he also required to assemble it?
Sure in America that's called jail. However, not everywhere is in America and not everywhere else uses that terminology. Sweden happens to be part of the everywhere that isn't America and doesn't use that terminology.
Neither dog food nor insects are considered human food in most countries. I'll rewrite your question so it makes more sense and is comparable to eating ordinary food instead of vegan food... "If you went to jail and all they served was vegan food, would you eat it? How about kosher/halal food?" My answer is, Yes I would eat what ever food they put in front of me as long as it is human food.
Well, we are talking about a sneaky mastermind of a organized piracy group which operates worldwide. This guy just has to be surrounded with most robust forces available. He knows all the tricks. At first blush he looks like a normal relaxed Nordic guy with whom it would be nice to have a beer. Under the skin, there is a cold-blooded file copier though.
Sunde did not commit any crime. His actions where made crimes after he performed them and he was convicted due to foreign and political pressure on the legal system.
I'm sure it's just a question about vegan/vegetarian food not having same status as halal/kosher food. I doubt Muslims in Swedish jails would be forced to eat non-halal food. It's probably just a matter of economics. Preparing special food for one guy and have it delivered to him would cost too much money and take up to many man-hours. It's just not cost effective and prisons have a budget just like every other government run facility.
What a crap start to Monday morning.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
http://xoxpedia.blogspot.ca/20...
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I reckon you have never heard of the miscarriage of justice.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Except you can restate anything that you are prevented from doing as being something you are forced to do. For example, you are not allowed to go outside, which means you are forced to stay in the jail. The distinction you make is completely irrelevant.
These are the kind of debates that Europeans have about jail. In us we chuckle at this and go back to debating whether we should do anything to prevent prisoners getting raped in the shower (end result: we turn a blind eye).
They sure as hell aren't sentient when I eat them.
I'm not a vegan. I'm not just dumb enough to think that vegans are all part of some hivemind.
> Also I wouldn't be citing moral choices when you're committing actions society as deemed criminal and will result in jail.
What's up with you folks? When someone goes to jail (s)he ceases to be human somehow?
This is a sentiment which I see deppressingly often. Get a clue: in a state of right, society puts people in jail to protect itself: it should always be a tough choice, and people in jail don't lose their human rights for that.
Yikes.
I've heard that people who don't eat meat for a while can get sick if they suddenly do.
So if I have a "moral" belief that says I can only eat PRIME beef in proportion with Lobster and an expensive vintage wine, cooked in a specific way and accompanied by a rotating set of side dishes, the prison system is now required to provide for my "morally" dictated diet? Of course not.
What the prison system is required to provide is basic food. If that does not meet your "moral" requirements then don't eat. or eat as your choose. This "normal" diet is not cruel or unusual punishment. If the prison system chooses to provide more than that, it is up to them, but those who break the law, get what they get and I'm tired of all the complaining about it being unfair or wrong.
I wan to remind folks that prisons have come a long way. It wasn't that long ago being in prison meant you starved and spent your time in hard labor. Prisons where seen as punishment. In may places in the world they still are this way. In some ways we've made prison too cushy if you ask me.
So, if you are sent to prison (or jail) I suggest you not expect your vegan diet choice to be accommodated, just like mine won't be either. Learn to live with eating what you can, or if it means enough to you, starve yourself to death for your morals. I'm all for you exercising your morals, I just wish you had a bit more moral clarity on your activities that got you in trouble in the first place...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You can consider yourself a vegan but you're not. You've become omnivorous.
Veganism is a diet for rich western people who have shops stocked with food year round and first world medical facilities. For most of the world, veganism is a cruel joke, if not a slow suicide.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
actually not , most people in the world are too poor to afford meat unless they grow it themselves and even then they eat it sparingly. This has been ever since humans have traded foodstuffs.
Meat is a diet for rich western people who have first world medical facilities , for most of the world , eating meat is a cruel joke , a slow suicide of the planet as land used for meat production is typically orders of magnitude less resource efficient.
there i fixed it for you , now please fix your diet and mindset
[site]
Jail is not supposed to be about punishment, but rehabilitation. The United States has a terrible problem with this concept.
the sentence was not death , it was imprisonment.
would you force a muslim or a jew to eat pork ? a hindu to eat beef ?
[site]
Hinduism is a pretty major religion, at least worldwide, and most of it's adherents are vegetarian.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Maybe in the US - other countries don't have such a distinction between jail and prison - they are synonyms in such a country.
People have their own individual reasons for being rapists. "Alcohol isn't really rape, it turns a no into a yes so it's not rape." "She was all over me, then she started being a bitch." In the end, it all comes down to a macho feeling of control and a sexual outlet, coupled with lack of caring for the other person.
You say that "people have their own individual reasons for being vegans", and it holds the same weight: people are trying to assimilate a position of individuality, and don't have a real moral concern for anything when they go vegan. Vegans argue over whether bee honey is actually vegan, as it exploits slave insect labor; they don't understand that bees would leave the hive if their position was uncomfortable. Vegans argue against the killing of animals, while eating grain farmed in practices that wound or kill animals and insects continuously. The meat at the slaughter is the least of all suffering involved in food production: it is as if you burned down a 500 mile wide forest, and complained about someone stepping on a dandelion.
Vegans don't care about any of that. They honestly don't care. They are joining to an ideal--a packaged ideal. Buddha said that consumption causes suffering, and so we should not overconsume: he understood that eating too much, building too much, taking too much water, anything we do inflicts pain and suffering on a large scale to other humans and to animals and insects alike. Vegans are concerned with what, and not with how much; they aren't concerned about their food source having more loss, greater shipping requirements, and other demands which eventually lead to more consumption and more animal suffering. They just don't want to be involved in the suffering of a sheep or chicken somewhere.
It's an ideal system straddled purely to produce a social kinship feeling. It provides a self-identity. Vegans can't deviate and eat meat which will otherwise be thrown away not because it will somehow reduce suffering of some animal, but because it is an assault on their identity and sense of self.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Preparing special food for one guy and have it delivered to him would cost too much money and take up to many man-hours.
It's just not cost effective and prisons have a budget just like every other government run facility.
It's not about cost. There is no reason for this guy to be placed in a high security prison that is aspiring to be a maximum security prison.
Clearly someone thought that it was well worth the extra cost just to make an example out of this guy.
There are prisons that are way more suitable and economic for someone like him but they weren't used.
My guess is he complained in the wrong way like being about his health. If he had raised it a conscience issue and that he was a conscious objector to eating products made of or from animals they'd have bent over backwards quite quickly, Sweden is so politically correct to anyone being offended they'd have complied instantly.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's not about "moral choices"; it's about conformity to a non-mainstream ideal so as to set oneself apart and produce a feeling of independence.
What if my "non-mainstream ideal" is that I need to view at least 1 hour of porn a day. Should the prison be required to supply me with that each day?
If you don't want to eat the food the prison supplies then fine, the prison will get you your special meal but once you're released you're sent a bill for your choice of food. There will be an exception if you require a special diet but only if a doctor states it's needed for you to live.
My meat packed freezer and diet are just fine. now please stop forcing your beliefs upon others. Do as you wish and I'll do as I wish.
It was an analogy to illustrate relative morality. There are some people who would have no trouble eating dog food, but we consider it unpalatable. Non-vegans have no trouble eating meat but vegans consider that unpalatable.
There's no particular reason the Swedish prison system can't cater for dietary preferences.
you are the one spreading lies about vegans , that is forcing your beliefs on others.
I pointed out your are wrong and suggested you change , thats not forcing my beliefs on others.
maybe if you ate less meat you might less agressive and defensive , i've heard it does that to people.
[site]
There you go again with your childish thinking that everyone in prison carefully weighed up the pros and cons of them breaking the law. Clearly they all didn't, so your claims are a farce.
So, your argument is blaming the victim?
The idea that all people in prison deserve whatever abuse because they did something morally wrong to get there doesn't make sense in theory (one can be both victimiser and a victim), let alone in practice given that law and morality sometimes match up and oftentimes do not. That meaning that there are plenty of people in prison for doing nothing wrong, or even doing the right thing.
And that might not sway your black-and-white view of the world, but I am certain you would feel differently if you were Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu being fed only pork (or beef in the case of being Hindu). Being arbitrarily forced to choose between conviction and survival with no need for it is akin to torture (certainly cruel and unusual).
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
People have their own individual reasons for being rapists.
Absolutely true.
people are trying to assimilate a position of individuality
By making this post, you're trying to assimilate a position of individuality. Raging against the machine, are we? How childish. I know exactly how you think, because I'm psychic.
No? Why not? Eating other sentient beings or not is a moral choice.
Because the actual damage of producing, obtaining, and transporting food is large. Meat is easier to keep than vegetables: you can slaughter animals as needed, but vegetables must be planted months in advanced and harvested at the right time. Blemished vegetables are often thrown out (we've started to use them to make soups); blemished fruits are more often thrown out; and a lot isn't sold from the supermarket. Grain stores better than anything, but still uses a lot of land, damaging farming practice, varmint management, etc.
Everything that we produce--food, non-food, the like--involves continuous harm to the environment at large, and direct harm to individual animals and insects. An animal you slaughter is just the end of a huge trail of dead insects and animals. It's imperative to kill all the rabbits, mice, voles, and moles living in your fields if you grow vegetables. Free-graze cattle and even grain-fed livestock don't deal with concerns of storage and preparation for human consumption; they also eat genetically modified foods, for better or worse, which require less damaging management.
The largest impact of human activity is how much. If you want to inflict less harm, eat less. For example: eat cow--large single animal--instead of chicken. The obvious deficiency is the ever-expanding human population: if we free-range hunted and gathered, we'd strip the land bare; dense human farming supports our population.
These are all technical considerations; they tell little of mindset. The most telling illustration of mindset is the regard vegans have when meat is proffered: they won't eat it. The food will be thrown away; future accommodations won't be made. The act of not eating prison mystery meat or the steak and shrimp served at a wedding does nothing except throw more food in the trash. At business functions, when a significant vegitarian or vegan population exists in the business, meetings which ordered 3 trays now order 4, consuming more (with attached increased suffering to animals) than if the vegans just ate the same food as everyone else.
None of this matters, because veganism is a matter of self: for a vegan to eat meat would be inexcusable even when you could demonstrate absolutely that consuming a vegetable instead would inflict more suffering on animals than if they just ate the meat provided. Consuming meat is an attack on a vegan's personal identity, and would be akin to slicing open your own arm: it cannot be done without significant psychological harm.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I wonder when someone realizes that they can begin to hunt the trackers.
TPB often uses the same bunch: tracker.openbittorrent.com, tracker.publicbt.com, tracker.istole.it, open.demonii.com.
Who owns and maintains these BitTorrent trackers?
Shady people living in countries hostile to the US and with no extradition policies.
Most 'cases' against those involve takedown notices sent to the their domain registars and do nothing to the server or the people running it.
The fight against privacy is a futile one.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
I know exactly how you think, because I'm psychic.
Your argument is thus: "Nobody can know how anyone thinks or why they do what they do."
Then, there's the entire field of psychology, and its medical application as psychiatry.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
That's fine. The problem is vegetarians and vegans see themselves as adhering to a moral choice to save the animals, when it's nothing of the sort. If it were, then they wouldn't trade food in prison to make sure that the same food was eaten by other people; they'd recognize that eating the pork chop today is not going to kill another pig, and just eat that.
Eating the pork chop today would shatter their self-image. It's that simple. They would have an identity crisis, which would be uncomfortable.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"When I complained I was told that they didn't need to afford me any special accommodation as my diet was neither religious nor medicinal..."
Vegetarian and (preferably) vegan diet is part of Mahayana Buddhism and Jainism. Sweden is supposedly a secular society. Thus, if they would provide a special diet to a member of these two religions that they would not provide to someone who is not, then Sweden has ceased to be a secular society and has committed an act of government-enforced religious discrimination. It really is that simple.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
No jail is supposed to be about holding a person who who is still innocent of any crime while awaiting trial. It is mostly just where people wait when they can't afford or are denied the ability to be released before trial. Often times, this is done as a pressure tactic where a person is denied the ability to be released on technicalities and given harsh time in jail in order to convince them to sign a confession.
Otherwise it is very similar to prison usually, including bland tasteless food, all designed to mill confessions out of people.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You're lending credence to the theory that veganism is a religion.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
A vegetarian/vegan diet is also about saving money and energy, thus it would be a great choice for public facilities such as prisons.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
First of all, incarceration after arrest is not "prison"; it's jail.
Not really. That's mainly a USA-specific distinction, and he was imprisoned in Sweden.
We have the same distinct inion Sweden, both the term and the facility. Before trial you're in 'häkte' quite often solitary and with restricted communications/news input. These are typically nuilt into bigger police stations. Sweden is often criticized for the long periods of time persons can be kept there. After sentencing you go to 'fängelse', of which there are different styles. Unless you serve your time on monitored house arrest, possibly even with allowance to travel to work.
Maybe in the US - other countries don't have such a distinction between jail and prison - they are synonyms in such a country.
Sweden has the distinction. During investigation, pre trial -> häkte. Post trial serving a sentence -> fängelse
And they could also recognize the difference between things that feel pain much like humans do and things that don't, while preferring to spare those that do.
I'm not a vegan, but even I can think this stuff up. It's always cute to see someone calling others "hypocrites" without even attempting to understand them or understand that people aren't part of a hivemind. "Hypocrisy" means directly contradicting yourself in some way. As long as they haven't done that (and believing something along the lines of what I thought of), then they're not actual hypocrites.
Did you find "Hypocrite(s) anywhere in my post?
But since you broached the subject, and also since there are doezens of levels of vegetarianism, and veganism, perhaps you can educate us on which one is or isn't "hypocritical"?
Is the vegetarian who does not eat like the vegan hypocritical? or a lacto ovarian? or someone who doesn't eat red meat? Or only fish? Sorry, I've sat through too many lectures by those who think that what they eat defines their goodness or badness.
In other words, if you only want to eat emmer wheat, or alfalfa, have at it. But as I noted, it doesn't make you a better person, only a more restrictive one.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Prison systems in some of the civilized countries are run differently than the American system. Their idea is to reduce recidivism by treating prisoners as human beings with rights, rather than caged animals. And it works. From TFA:
Despite being accused of non-violent crimes, Peter was transferred to a high-security unit.
I'm not sure how the Swedish system works, but in the US, if you're going to be held for more than a few days, you'll be transferred from a jail to a prison. It seems likely that they transferred him to a high-security detention facility for political reasons. Had he been sent to a facility for non-violent detainees, he would expect to have his rights respected, including the right to his diet. Moral reasons are just as valid as religious reasons, (if not more).
Full disclosure: I love meat!
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
there i fixed it for you , now please fix your diet and mindset
So what you are saying is the poorest of the world are what should be emulated. No thanks, sparky.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Your argument is thus: "Nobody can know how anyone thinks or why they do what they do."
I just argue that you're not a mind-reader and that you should probably stop trying to be a pseudo-psychologist on the Internet who constantly spews forth buzzwords.
Then, there's the entire field of psychology, and its medical application as psychiatry.
You're pointing to soft science to help you out? Please. And even the soft scientists don't agree that you can randomly label entire groups as hiveminds where all individuals in said groups are in the groups because of reason X.
"now please fix your diet and mindset" "maybe if you ate less meat you might less agressive and defensive , i've heard it does that to people."
You are straddling the fine line of forcing/not forcing your beliefs on others in my opinion. Just because you're not saying it in a certain way doesn't mean your intent isn't there.
This is the kind of bullshit the vegan culture doesn't understand. They can lecture you all day on your moral shortcomings, and you dare not comment, lest you are trying to force them. They feel that they are merely speaking truth, and forcing the truth on someone isn't forcing anything.
veganism is completely unnatural, and appears to addle the pate, because old amias thinks it can say stuff like that, youe you are the one forcing their religion on it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
People have their own individual reasons for being vegans.
So why do they congregate in groups on online nutrition forums and do nothing but add scientifically unsupportable claims about their diet? It looks very much like a group activity to me.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I have a pot roast in the oven right now.
I put it on as low as the oven will go this morning and when I get back from work, there will be a pot of awesome, moist, tender beef sitting in gravy and it will be good.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Do you have any statistics to show precisely just how many of them do that, or is this nothing more than a hasty generalization?
Well it is obvious that you will HAPPILY drink your own pee, eat someone else's vomit to avoid dying. Good for you.
However some of us who are a bit more human, think no one deserves to be forced to do that, irrespective of their crimes, whatever you think they are. Not because they may or may not deserve it. But because what such attitude says about us.
How can you force your beliefs on someone, besides having the government or some other group physically intervene? Merely stating your opinion isn't forcing anything.
Humans are animals. Humans exist in nature. Therefore, how can anything humans do be unnatural? Skyscrapers are natural. Modern medicine is natural. Eating meat is natural. Not eating meat is natural.
I just argue that you're not a mind-reader and that you should probably stop trying to be a pseudo-psychologist on the Internet who constantly spews forth buzzwords.
No, you're setting up a strawman. The technical term for jargon is not buzzword; it's "domain-specific language". You're also implying mind reading and psychology are the same thing.
You're pointing to soft science to help you out? Please.
As you imply that soft sciences aren't science and aren't real. Here, you dismiss psychology and other "soft sciences" as invalid.
And even the soft scientists don't agree that you can randomly label entire groups as hiveminds where all individuals in said groups are in the groups because of reason X.
I believe the term you want is "arbitrarily", not "randomly". Regardless, application of science is not arbitrary labeling, any more than fuel mileage ratings are arbitrary. In this particular case--in prison, where the food consumed or not consumed will be the food that comes in, and food that is not consumed is wasted--I can argue from a wholly logical perspective to show that what you eat in prison is immaterial. The argument of a moral impetus at best holds no meaning; at worst, food is wasted, and any special accommodations made increase consumption and thus lead to more environmental damage and related harm to fluffy animals and insects.
Given the situation, why would someone continue to refuse eating meat that is available? Why would anyone not casually consume meat and animal products which are available and already prepared at any given function? They could refuse to support the industry by not buying it; but casual actions have a null or negative impact within the supposed moral and ethical system. The only plausible explanation--and the one that lines up with modern psychology--is the one I've given. You can deny it all you want, and still have plenty of friends in the Flat Earth Society.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And reducing to the absurd, is it OK for the prison to cook and serve recipients of the death penalty to the other prisoners? If not, then the prisoners have at least some rights WRT diet.
Moving back to the real world, does a person with a potentially fatal reaction to peanuts have a right to a nut free environment? There's some further rights in diet.
Note that some vegetarians and vegans actually will get sick if they eat meat. Probably not fatally so, but it might be quite painful and incapacitating. Surely that should suggest further rights WRT diet.
Now, lets consider harmless to most but disgusting. Is it OK for the prison to serve a can of dog food in a bowl for dinner? Probably not though I acknowledge that some sickos (who probably belong in prison) think that would be funny (as long as they aren't in prison).
OTOH, it's not like omnivores cannot also eat vegan dishes (and even enjoy them), so they can still get the benefit of scale if they prepare a vegan side dish for everyone and let the actual vegans have it as the main course.
OTOH, a prison serving Alpo and maggots every night while laughing about your "fancy pants USDA approved diet" might be going a bit far, don't you think?
No, you're setting up a strawman. The technical term for jargon is not buzzword; it's "domain-specific language".
There is no straw man here. Just empty language.
You're also implying mind reading and psychology are the same thing.
No, I'm implying that your psycho-babble is nonsensical. I did, however, explicitly state that psychology and its ilk are soft sciences.
As you imply that soft sciences aren't science and aren't real.
No, they're real.
Regardless, application of science
You've provided no rigorous scientific study proving that all vegans are vegans because of the reasons you've stated. In fact, I don't even think you've linked to a soft science study.
I can argue from a wholly logical perspective to show that what you eat in prison is immaterial.
That's 100% subjective. It all depends on the person's values.
The only plausible explanation
The only plausible explanation is that you arbitrarily decide why individuals in a group are in that group because you desperately feel as if everyone must be the same. You can deny it all you want, and still have plenty of friends in the Flat Earth Society.
I just wish you had a bit more moral clarity on your activities that got you in trouble in the first place...
Yes, because what is illegal is immoral, and what is legal is moral.
I did, however, explicitly state that psychology and its ilk are soft sciences.
You stated:
You're pointing to soft science to help you out? Please.
Yes, how quaint.
This is a dismissive statement. It has words that says "this is science!", and tone that says, "Air quotes included."
You're think YOU could beat me in a fight? You and what army? ... some kids from your TKD class? Please. We both know Tae Kwan Do kids couldn't win a fight with an incontinent house cat.
It turns out that tone in language is a real thing, too.
That's 100% subjective. It all depends on the person's values.
No, it's 100% objective. Your value system is immaterial: it's not real; it's an imaginary thing in your head, with no bearing on THE MATERIAL WORLD. The MATERIAL facts are the realities of the situation: the physical effects of taking these idealistic actions.
Your value system won't change that there is meat here now. Not eating the meat won't magically undo the dead cow in front of you. It will, however, save you from a distressing break from your routine behavior and a forceful re-evaluation of yourself and your behaviors.
It's essentially the same thing as skipping church, if you go to church every week: it won't hurt anyone, but it'll upset you personally.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
OTOH, a prison serving Alpo and maggots every night while laughing about your "fancy pants USDA approved diet" might be going a bit far, don't you think?
If that's what society finds to be a "normal"diet then you get what you get. Look, it is at "cruel and unusual punishment" where we draw the line. In the USA, such a diet would clearly NOT be normal so I think "unusual" would apply to your hypothetical situation. Vegan is NOT normal, in fact, some would consider it fringe. It is NOT normal diet and therefore prisons are NOT required to accommodate it. Your moral objections not withstanding.
Funny that people would make this a "moral" argument, when prison is reserved for those who lack enough moral constraints to keep from violating the law.... But I digress..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I just have my personal experience of discussing scientific results in nutrition forums. Then every now and the, all at once, a bunch of vegans turn up and start making daft statements with no scientific basis.
E.G.
Blaming nitrites in bacon and hotdogs for cancer when celery has a much higher nitrite content and isn't linked with cancer.
etc.
I could go on and on with more examples, but I'm at work and need to get my job done.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
You're lending credence to the theory that veganism is a religion.
Bingo.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Humans are animals. Humans exist in nature. Therefore, how can anything humans do be unnatural? Skyscrapers are natural. Modern medicine is natural. Eating meat is natural. Not eating meat is natural.
Try eating rocks. Then come back in a year and tell us how natural and healthy it is.
Your definition is overly broad, and classifies everything as natural.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Beliefes like these: http://www.vegetus.org/honey/h...
Seriously, "enslaving the bee"? Do you morons understand anything about the life-cycle of honey bees why they are here and how they survive?
Good grief, you guys are complete crack-pots.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Yes, how quaint.
Yes, that is something I said. Keep relying on your worse-than-soft-science garbage to determine what other people think and why.
No, it's 100% objective. Your value system is immaterial
"I can argue from a wholly logical perspective to show that what you eat in prison is immaterial."
That sounds more like a value statement to me, which would be subjective.
it's not real; it's an imaginary thing in your head, with no bearing on THE MATERIAL WORLD.
Your brain is part of the material world.
Your value system won't change that there is meat here now. Not eating the meat won't magically undo the dead cow in front of you.
And neither will it help the situation. Or keep you from getting sick from eating meat after not doing so for such a long period of time. Or satisfy you if you think that eating meat is gross. Or do anything for any number of other reasons someone could be a vegan.
It's essentially the same thing as skipping church
An intelligent decision? And while you're skipping church, stop believing in magical sky daddies.
That sounds more like a value statement to me, which would be subjective.
Because even if you were to assume that their efforts were wasted, that doesn't mean they have to care.
Who is "you" referring to? And how does that relate to what I said?
Try eating rocks. Then come back in a year and tell us how natural and healthy it is.
That would be a natural action. Healthy is different from natural, and is something you randomly brought up just now. Natural != good. Unnatural != bad. Humans are not removed from nature.
Your definition is overly broad, and classifies everything as natural.
Indeed, the distinction is meaningless.
I just wish you had a bit more moral clarity on your activities that got you in trouble in the first place...
Yes, because what is illegal is immoral, and what is legal is moral.
Moral/Ethical behavior is USUALLY legal. However, the converse is not true. Many things are "legal" but are neither moral or ethical.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Finally, someone sharing my worldview. Yes, it would be nice to eat stuff without killing another organism, but we are meant to feed by consuming what other life forms processed for us. And vegans kill plants, which just don't have big brown eyes so it's okay to murder them. Hypocrites all of them.
I'm not in the least spiritual, but the Native Americans had something that was sort of charming, all things considered. An animal that they killed for food was ritually "thanked" for it's sacrifice.
Not all of life is pretty, or fair. I'm thankful of the meat I consume, I'm thankful of the plants. I'm really thankful for the yeast products.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
nope , you said that. just after you missed the point
[site]
Vegan is normal enough. You didn't have to look it up, did you? You've probably actually met a vegan even. Is it 'normal' in society to not allow people to be vegan? Is it normal not to permit dietary choices for moral or religious reasons (such as kosher or halal)? No, that is not normal.
As for the rest, in addition to people who have not yet been convicted of any crime, there are people who were wrongly convicted or who took a plea in the face of insurmountable odds against them in spite of innocence.
Then there's the idea of taking someone who has shown an unfortunate tendency to give up on morals over practical concerns and bullying them into sacrificing what little moral convictions they have left for more practicality. Surely this will teach them how much society values moral conviction...
IMHO, Vegan is fringe.. But I do live in the BBQ capital of the world. I would guess that I've only known ONE person who even approached Vegan, and even she found it very difficult to make it work for long periods and had to consume some non-vegan supplements to get by. Last I heard she gave the full Vegan idea up, it's just not natural for humans to eat that way. I found the whole thing STUPID, but hey, more meat for me so knock yourself out.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It appears you reply in anger before reading who the comment was from so I'm going to assume your reply was for DiamondGeezer as mind was the first one made.
Also my comment was anything but aggressive while you're comment is slightly on the aggressive side, you know, saying I'm spreading lies about vegans and all when I in fact never said anything about vegans. I simply don't like someone telling me or others to fix something that isn't broken. I'm very healthy if not on the tad under weight side according to my Dr. Matter a fact, last cholesterol levels were too low. Sounds like I need to eat more fatty meats and some yummy eggs.
So in the end, you feel something is wrong with me because I eat meat. Don't say otherwise because, here let me quote you:
now please fix your diet and mindset
I never say anything was wrong with being vegan.
veganism is completely unnatural
It's believed that the human brain greatly evolved from eating meat afterall.
Your brain is part of the material world.
You're using the "imaginary friends are real because they're in your brain, which is real" argument?
That sounds more like a value statement to me, which would be subjective.
So you're saying that something being absolutely true is a value statement, because... maybe somebody doesn't care about the truth and reality, but would rather follow a nonsensical belief system? This is like saying "trees aren't demons plotting to destroy us" is subjective.
Or keep you from getting sick from eating meat after not doing so for such a long period of time.
I actually know one person who doesn't eat meat because it makes her ill. She has a physical disorder which prevents her from properly digesting meat, causing an anemia. I also know several people who were vegan for years, and then switched back; I used to not drink milk (for 15 years) and was even lactose intolerant at one point--an occurrence which is actually common among people who bluntly swear off milk, unlike meat intolerance.
An intelligent decision?
"Skipping church" was equated to "eating meat" for their respective participants. So you just suggested, in a full reversal of your arguments, that a vegan eating meat would be a vegan making an intelligent decision.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Personally, I'm an omnivore. My wife went vegetarian for health reasons but also considers vegan too far. Some cultures think we're nuts for ignoring insects as a high density protein source. Others think our standards for bug parts in grains are too loose.
All in all though, I believe if our society wants to claim the moral high ground (as it surely does when it imprisons someone), it needs to actually occupy that high ground and accommodate dietary choices, particularly when they're not expensive to implement.
1) He's not a victim. He's a convicted criminal.
False dichotomy. Turns out he's both. Go back and dig in the posts. It was in fact illegal for the prison not to at least serve a vegeterian meal. So he was the victim of a crime.
Happy now?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Because the actual damage of producing, obtaining, and transporting food is large.
Indeed, and producing and obtaining vegetable is far, far more efficient and requires vastly less lang than meat.
Meat is easier to keep than vegetables: you can slaughter animals as needed, but vegetables must be planted months in advanced and harvested at the right time.
Harvested at the right time---then stored for ages. There's also a concept of "seasonable vegetables". In fact in the very recent past poor people mostly ate seasonable vegetables because they are the cheapest and most readily available foods. And you know what else? Vegetables can be frozen too, just like meat.
Blemished vegetables are often thrown out
By idiots who only by Class A vegetables. Plenty of places use them commercially as they're entirely edible and in many dishes, the blemishes won't be visible anyway. You can bet your bottom dollar that ready meals with chopped up veg in did not source only Class A produce waxed to a high sheen.
Grain stores better than anything, but still uses a lot of land, damaging farming practice, varmint management, etc.
If you're trying to argue that arable farming uses more land than animal husbandry please stop. You are simply flat out incorrect.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
1) He's not a victim. He's a convicted criminal.
You are a criminal too, even if you have managed not to get caught yet.
Thank you for permission to beat and kill you since you wouldn't be my victim.
2) It's not abuse, any more than making your kid eat his broccoli is abuse. Not liking specific food you could eat just fine something isn't grounds for special treatment.
In this one case maybe, but if they really do refuse to serve meals one medically needs to obtain nutrition, then this same policy - while "only" a moral issue to Sunde - is a sentence to slow death by starvation to those lacking the microbes to digest meat at all.
3) If you intentionally starve yourself the only person you're hurting is you.
And when the prison is intentionally starving you by action similar to serving you nothing but water to eat, then the only person hurting others is the prison itself.
"I eat what I am physically designed to eat, and any "vegan" who is claiming moral superiority, but happily slaughters and devours plant life is just a hypocrite."
Crikeys - I did write that! Guilty as charged. Dammit, Vicodin and Nyquil apparently fogs the mind.
I stand corrected.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
>Seriously, "enslaving the bee"? Do you morons understand anything about the life-cycle of honey bees why they are here and how they survive?
Good grief, you guys are complete crack-pots.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. People who have to analyze and assign a "Yes this is good!" or a NO Evil and badness!" to everything
In it's extreme forms, it can drive a person mad. But a moral values vegan has just not thought out the process.
Because then we have to decide that every carnivore is evil and bad, and pure herbivores are good.
Because if exploiting other beings and eating other living non plant beings is evil for humans, it is no less evil for any predator animal, because a lion sure does inflict a lot of pain on the gazelle, and many animals eat their prey while it is still living. I have thought it out, and have decided that we are what we are - Omnivores and omnivores eat meat.
Veganism is for prey species.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
From what I have read in articles, he did get the same food as the other prisoners except with the non-vegan parts removed.
For instance, if the prisoners were given spaghetti with bolognese-sauce, he as given only spaghetti. If the other prisoners were given meatballs and potatoes, he got a potato. That's not exactly a balanced diet.
BTW. Silly that the parent post gets mod'ed "Score:4, Insightful" when it says "Without more details it is hard to judge".
We can do better, guys.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Veganism is a lot more extreme than just being a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is common in many parts of the world. But veganism certainly is not.
Sure in America that's called jail. However, not everywhere is in America and not everywhere else uses that terminology. Sweden happens to be part of the everywhere that isn't America and doesn't use that terminology.
And even though we have "jails" in Sweden, Peter Sunde still wasn't in our version anyway, as he was incarcerated having been sentenced. The Pirate Bay trial and all that...
He was arrested in May to serve his prison sentence. Police claims he's been hiding himself abroad, he claims he's been quite open about his whereabouts and weren't even told there was an international warrant out for his arrest.
Given how the trial was handled, and given that Peter Sunde is the one of the Pirate Bay founders that have always kept his nose clean otherwise, I'm more inclined to believe his account than the official one.
Now, regarding food, that's not the only instance where the Swedish prison authority haven't followed their own rules. And as Peter Sunde didn't just roll over and take it, but lodged several formal complaints, he's been treated rather badly. Not only put in a high security prison when he was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, has no history of violence, is a first time offender, and was most definitely not sentenced for a violent crime. It even got to the point where the prison authority threatened that he would have to carry his father's coffin wearing handcuffs! This for a prisoner that has no formal complaints lodged against him and that were given leave at least twice to visit his father in hospital under much less strict security.
No, it pains me to say it, but there's something rotten in the state of Sweden. This whole thing from beginning to end, smells badly.
Stefan Axelsson
Your own pee and vomit?
What the fuck does eating something scientifically marked as waste being compared to meat? Meat is a product we developed into eating long, long ago and people should be god damn thankful they can choose to live off of other food, that wasn't always an option depending on where your geographic location was. Especially given the amount of vegetables etc one needs to eat to maintain weight.
Don't even try that bullshit where you're going to go some beliefs consider meat a waste or some shit, it's not, it's good for your body, your body uses it properly, it doesn't make you ill except for certain genetic conditions.
Pee and vomit are BAD for you period. You can't argue it, you have nothing. It causes damage to ones body to consume these kinds of things.
Let's be you, Glad you're okay with people eating HUMAN FECES AND FLESH TO SURVIVE.
Yes, that's how you sound.
When Geronimo Pratt was incarerated, his guardians even used to shit in his food at random occasions before serving it to him - without any warning of course...
Low-meat diet, which indeed is the staple of mankind's food consumption for most of its time on earth, is not the same thing as a vegan diet.
I am not a vegan, but think that vegans do have a higher moral ground, although we both kill living stuff to get energy, they kill much more dormant creatures vs me killing a much smarter creatures that has a very visible fear response when approaching slaughter. And I didn't even take into account the dormant creatures which are killed to feed animals before killing it.
Are frank carnivores the big cats immoral?
Better yet, are omnivores like dogs immoral because while they can express empathy, they will kill and eat other creatures?
Is a horse a more moral creature than a vulture?
This is the problem you have when you try to suss out morality from what we consume.
You end up with either a contradiction, or have to rationalize away the contradiction. Or you just avoid thinking it the whole way through. You have to deny your nature
If you eat acording to your innate nature (omnivore), there is no contradiction. How we process food is another thing entirely. I'm an omnivore, and I hate food factory processasing with a passion. But to become a vegan for that reason is the same thing as becoming a frank carnivore because you don't like what Monsanto does. And if you don't wish to eat meat, if you want to consume only certain things? Have at it. It can be a preference like some people don't like certain foods. But I never recieved lectures or been publicly berated by anyone that doesn't like spinach or salmon cakes. Vegans on the other hand? Not unlike the public preachers that tell us we're going to hell while we walk around town.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Wasn't he allowed to buy food himself or have friends deliver it?
You are expanding "hipster vegan" to all vegan. It just shows that you have very limited life experiences (or broad life experiences with a closed mind).
Learn to love Alaska
I used to not drink milk (for 15 years) and was even lactose intolerant at one point--an occurrence which is actually common among people who bluntly swear off milk, unlike meat intolerance.
So you "know" meat intolerance doesn't exist? How do you know that? Sounds like a personal belief based on opinion with religious conviction. You are what you hate. A pompous fool spreading his personal opinion/choice as the Only True Way.
Learn to love Alaska
If you were sent to jail and dinner was other prisoners, would you become a cannibal, or trade for more broccoli? Remember, trading away Bob for dinner won't bring him back to life.
Learn to love Alaska
Wait, so if I don't bother to think about the consequences I should be better accommodated?
Clearly your vote is for a world without consequences. Or people having to think about consequences to adjust what they do.
No, I'm not. "Hipster Vegan" is being Vegan because it's cool and different, and has a small subgroup, and is thus sophisticated; this is a very weak self-image, as the self-image is the differentiation from common culture. "Real Vegan" is the deep self-image, and functions like Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism: its tenants cannot be violated without violating the self. The difference is whether the person in question associates themselves with the subgroup, or whether they associate the subgroup with themselves.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Meat intolerance doesn't occur as a result of not eating meat. There is scientifically no basis for this, and no such thing has been observed. It has been observed that vegans and vegetarians can switch to meat-based diets after several years; it's currently trendy for vegans to take up the Paleo diet, including bison burgers and other red meat, in search of better health. The most common result is an immediate improvement in health.
By contrast, it's well-documented that lack of lactose ingestion often leads to a reduced tolerance for lactose. This happens to lactose intolerant individuals who are asymptomic. The excess lactose is digested by gut flora normally; extended periods without lactose ingestion deprive these bacteria of food, thus diminishing their numbers. When lactose is reintroduced, more of it is fermented by other bacteria, producing gas and associated symptoms; long exposure provides a survival advantage to those gut flora which more directly consume lactose (they derive more energy from it, thus can reproduce more rapidly), eventually diminishing symptoms.
It's also true that food tolerances change throughout life, with no regard to how much you actually eat. You can start off lactose-tolerant and become gradually lactose-intolerant, relying on gut flora as above. Your gut flora aren't identical to everyone else's, and so you may or may not be able to eat lactose anyway; some lactose intolerant people can eat small amounts, some can't eat any, and some can eat so much without symptoms that they're never discovered intolerant.
It's quite a complex phenomena.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
False equivalence. Are we hypothetically eliminating the health issues of eating human meat? Consuming human meat is an excellent way to spread prion diseases, which aren't killed by heat treatment.
Sans health concerns, we all know how the desert island scenario plays out: you kill the other castaways and eat them. The dog dies first.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"Real Vegan" is the deep self-image, and functions like Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism: its tenants cannot be violated without violating the self.
You are wrong. You are asserting your wrong opinion as fact. It's impossible to prove an opinion wrong, because it's not rooted in fact. So there's nothing to be done but tell anyone hearing your wrong opinion asserted as fact that it's wrong, and you are a bigot.
Learn to love Alaska
Meat intolerance doesn't occur as a result of not eating meat. There is scientifically no basis for this, and no such thing has been observed.
The basis is that the bacteria that best digest meat die out, replaced by bacteria more efficient in consuming vegetables. There is a scientific basis for this. Thankfully, you stated one fact in your rant presenting opinion as fact. Every fact you post is wrong, you just post so few. The rest is wrong opinion presented as fact.
Learn to love Alaska
Consuming human meat is an excellent way to spread prion diseases,
So the *only* reason you'd not eat human if it was presented for dinner is that you are afraid of prions?
Learn to love Alaska
You pretty much just asserted that vegans are an enigmatic mystery not understood by man. Possibly, you just asserted that anything dealing with human psychology is invalid, which carries the implication that human interactions are wholly random and be neither understood nor manipulated, which further implies that people don't actually have things they do and don't like or believe.
All such things are illogical. You make a hollow assertion, while also trying to shroud it in incorrect language. There are no opinions, only facts; we label as opinions certain facts which are complex due to the nature of personal preference. For example: a preference for pizza over tacos is an opinion--that pizza tastes better--and is largely formed by the facts of what a person has eaten before, what his palate has been trained for, and thus what appeals to him more. An assertion that pizza has more calories than tacos is a fact--it may be incorrect, but it's a simple data point which cannot change without physical changes to the medium. Disposition--the opinion that pizza tastes better--is also a fact, although its scope is limited to the person's preferences, and this scope is implicit.
What I pass off is an analysis of behavior. Vegans, when faced with a situation whereby there is no harm done by eating meat products placed in front of them, will reject meat; attempting to override this induces stress in the vegan. This cannot be for any reason other than a person's self-image: if a person is lead to believe that performing an action will cause no harm, but still finds great distress in performing the action, it is because they cannot reconcile their self-image with the ideal of themselves performing the action. In many such situations, the person refuses to accept any such assertion that performing the action would cause no harm, as it is equally distressing to view their own behavior as not carrying the meaning they've attached to it: they're more likely to just reject any physical considerations and apply the same viewpoint in all situations.
Facts. Facts facts facts. Facts. Facts facts. Facts. Gettin' in ur way.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Actually, meat is digested by stomach acid and enzymes such as pepsin and trypsin. Gut flora are more useful in digesting carbohydrates (e.g. lactose) and processing certain minerals into useful vitamins. Fats and proteins are much less affected. Likewise, the facilities required for digesting meat are also required for digesting proteins in grains, plants, and nuts.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yes. Prions can be passed by consumption of human meat, and are difficult to eradicate. They can pass fatal familial insomnia, CJD, and other diseases. Deer can pass Chronic Wasting Disease to humans, and so the nervous tissue is quickly discarded; eating human flesh infected by CWD can also pass CWD to humans, although human-to-human transmission otherwise is more difficult. Mad cow disease is also a prion, and the central reason why it is illegal to mix beef parts into beef feed.
I wouldn't have any sort of moral issues consuming human meat that was offered. I'd have issues with the acquisition and preparation (murder), the health issues, and personal squeamishness; the actual consumption of meat isn't a moral or ethical issue, and I see no crime in what is called defiling a corpse--dead people don't give a shit. If I were captive in some way which this was a primary form of sustenance, avoidance behavior would largely revolve around health issues in the same way that unprotected sex with anyone I meet is avoided for health issues.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You pretty much just asserted that vegans are an enigmatic mystery not understood by man.
You are grouping people who grouped themselves, but in a way unrelated to their grouping. You might as well be asserting that all people on public transport are Black or poor or something. Yes, they all self-selected for that group, but that doesn't mean their reason for doing so are all the same.
I'm asserting that individuals are individuals. You are arguing with that premise.
Learn to love Alaska
Add in the baseless claims against Assange and Sweden looks pretty fucking rotten.
That one is actually less clear, and I'd very much like to see that one in the courts (though granted, I'm not Assange, so I don't have quite as much riding on the result).
We have our share of feminist activist everything in Sweden, including prosecutors, so that could very well be the whole truth. While it is clear to me that there was American meddling in the Pirate Bay case, it's not nearly as clear here. (And if there was, the CIA must have had a bad day, as a covert OP this could have been handled a lot better). So again, not nearly as clear cut IMHO.
Stefan Axelsson
Though I now eat eggs
Just bear in mind that if you have any rooster around your hens, you are eating fertilized eggs and thus, killing helpless animals for food.
So say we all
Yes, they all self-selected for that group, but that doesn't mean their reason for doing so are all the same.
No, their "reason" for doing so is largely all the same; their "reasoning" is different.
Reason, the root cause, is as I stated. Reasoning is something else. This is confusing because "reason" is a noun, and "reason" is also a verb. A person reasoning is a person who reasons; but a person has a reason, and also has a reasoning (gerund).
In any case, the rational mind can decorate behaviors with social constructs. Men largely only fall in love with women whom they are attracted to physically, and straight men never fall in love with other men (and gay men don't fall in love with women, and bisexuals who prefer one sex over the other only fall for that sex). Their reasoning for a relationship is that they have an emotional or spiritual connection, but a cursory observation suggests love is a sexual behavior; scientifically, love is understood as a pair bonding phenomena, with familial love as a strong pair bonding and a social survival trait, and romantic love as a sexual attraction combined with a strong pair bonding. When someone says, "She's such a great person," "He's so driven," and so on, they're largely focusing on traits a lot of people they've met have, but which stand out to them due to this pair bonding: none of these things are actually why they have feelings for this person.
You assert that vegans are different from this: that they have nothing but an arbitrary, foundationless moral belief about eating meat. There's no such thing; it doesn't exist, and cannot. Two hundred years ago, 30-year-old men routinely selected 12-year-old girls they wanted to fuck, and got married, and then you had a pregnant 13-year-old having a baby at 14; today, any suggestion of attraction to someone under the age of 18 is considered morally reprehensible. One hundred years ago, it was not considered without virtue to hang a black man without trial; today, it's considered one of the worst atrocities of humanity. Fifty years ago, gay people were routinely arrested or executed for the crime of being homosexual. These were all, at some time, a moral imperative of society, and then became different moral imperatives.
Once a person assimilates into a social position, they must protect it. Deviation from that stance is distressing. Veganism is no different: they can't eat meat because it would harm them psychologically by damaging their self-image.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
So, because 200 years ago, 12 year olds were married by 30-somethings, vegans are predictable. Yeah, there's no coherent response to that, even if one were to attempt to agree.
Learn to love Alaska
Vegans are, ostensibly, an issue of morality. Marriage of 12-year-olds to 30-something men are also an issue of morality. There are many other social behaviors which can be said the same of, and they have all changed over time in similar ways, and have been studied to show similar drivers.
You're fixated on this "Vegans are a mystery box, and the way their minds work is deeply personal and does not follow any laws of science" ideal. Problem is their minds do follow the laws of science, and can be approached analytically.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Some vegans do it because they find it objectionable to eat people. More than one in the anti-vegan rants mentioned cannibalism being not immoral.
Others do it because they are for animal rights, and feel that eating meat supports animal torture.
Others are health nuts, and take it to excessive absolutes.
You are saying that all the reasons are not reasonable, and your one reason encompasses all perfectly.
I think that makes you an arrogant ass, and you've not supported your premise to convince others, obviously.
Learn to love Alaska
You are saying that all the reasons are not reasonable, and your one reason encompasses all perfectly.
Ask yourself this question: why do they behave that way? Even a health nut would eat meat if it were the only healthy food available--they would know that the carbohydrate-based gruel and the apples they can get in prison are not an adequate fat and protein source, and will make them ill, and so they will need meat because nobody is going to give them a bowl of nuts and dried soy beans. What, then, would drive a person to such obsession, if not fear of health issues?
Similarly, animal rights and the issue of supporting the meat industry go out the window in situations where your change in consumption effect no change in society. For example, a wedding planner may cater the wedding such that the 40 pounds of meat and 25 pounds of vegetables are vegan-friendly: the vegetables may involve beans, salads, and some better-spiced vegetable dishes, but they'll still be 25 pounds of vegetables, and you'll still see 40 pounds of meat at the reception. Obviously, the prison system isn't going to reduce its ordering of meat to deal with the vegan population. In both situations, what ties you to adhere to a hollow principle? The "animal rights" and "support of animal torture" considerations are founded on sand, and the sand has shifted away, and yet you still attempt to stand firm on air.
In these situations, when a person experiences any distress at the consideration of consuming the proffered meat, that distress stems not from a violation of the world around them, but from a violation of themselves. There is no other explanation: it damages their image of who they are, which weakens their sense of social position. You offer only peacock feathers and dismiss the idea that the bird may have flesh beneath them; I offer that a peacock is a bird of flesh and fat, and the feathers are only the dressing within which it enshrouds itself.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Instead of chasing down real criminals, they go after these guys because they're terrified that they might not make as many millions of dollars as they'd wanted! There was no crime here! ANYONE is allowed to "share" what they have!!!