Sam Bankman-Fried living on bread and water because jail won't abide vegan diet, lawyer says
Sam Bankman-Fried living on bread and water because jail won't abide vegan diet, lawyer says
The co-founder of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX pleaded not guilty to a seven count indictment charging him with wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering.
The co-founder of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX pleaded not guilty to a seven count indictment charging him with wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering.
An attorney for FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried said in federal court Tuesday his client has to subsist on bread, water and peanut butter because the jail he's in isn't accommodating his vegan diet.
You're viewing part of a thread.
if you saw a human from a tribe who spoke a language you would never understand, how do you know they feel pain and want to live? if you kick a dog, how do you know the dog didn't enjoy it? maybe people who are asleep dont feel pain or want to live. lets just eat people in comas, or who speak other languages, and lets beat dogs because its so unclear whether they like it or not
Animals must just run from danger because the wind pushes them that way. Wonder why dogs wag their tails when they see humans. Strange. Nah no proof they have desires or fears
Animals must just run from danger because the wind pushes them that way. Wonder why dogs wag their tails when they see humans. Strange. Nah no proof they have desires or fears
none of this is proof they understand personal mortality, which is the crux if this disagreement.
No it's not the crux. Avoiding danger to protect their lives is pretty good proof.
A man follows a woman and she runs away.
The man: "she could still wanna have sex"
Maybe you'd be better seeing all the animals that mourn deaths of others.
Maybe you’d be better seeing all the animals that mourn deaths of others.
mourning death of others is not proof that an animal know it, itself, might die.
ah the "I'm not touching you" argument
this distinction is the crux of the matter. your inability to address it meaningfully and nonsequitur of an accusation belie either a lack of understanding or a malicious intent to engage in bad faith. i can see no other explanation.
i addressed it, you are just a stubborn fuck who has been in bad faith from the start. you have made so many assertions with no basis, then get mad at shit i literally don't even say
you should reread this.
wow i can see how you argued like a 12 year old who watched a ben shapiro video and had many logical inconsistencies
had many logical inconsistencies
show one
Avoiding danger to protect their lives is pretty good proof.
you're observing behavior and assuming cognition. you need to prove the cognition, and behavior is evidence but not proof.
-said the man, still following the woman
accusing your interlocutors of sexual deviancy is a classic ad hominem.
not ad hominem. you just dont understand the point, or refuse to engage meaningully
this "no you are" tactic has a latin name
maybe sentience or wanting to live aren't metrics we should use as the basis of our morality.
no, you are just the only one stupid enough to think its unprovable
why should those be the metrics on which you base morality?
Do you wish to feel pain, or be murdered? Probably not, so why would you do it to someone else with the capacity to feel pain and desire to live? Empathy is the basis.
sometimes pain is necessary or even good. and the only creature i know of which understands personal mortality, and so can have a desire to live, is humans, and i think homicide is bad, but i don't think that is related to having a desire to live.
but you havent spoken to all humans. you haven't proven they feel pain. pain being a necessity or good is your opinion. If I think, "hmm i like being raped", does that make it okay to do to others, or should i be smart enough to see that other people dont like it WITHOUT having to literally fucking ask them. What does this argument matter when you are the kind of mf who wouldn't understand consent. "Uh your honor, they didnt say they werent enjoying it and thus there was no other way to tell they didnt want to have sex"
another accusation of sexual deviancy coupled with a demonstration that you don't actually understand the topic. brilliant.
your degree isnt helping you understand anything
i didn't say it's unprovable. you're putting words in my mouth.
You're one to talk. No you said "you cant prove" like a million times
you're saying i said you can't prove something i didn't say you couldn't prove though. you literally invented a position.
calling me stupid doesn't undermine my position or bolster yours.
never said it would, stupid
accusing your interlocutors of sexual deviancy is a classic ad hominem.
more ad hominem.
gets insulted
"ad hominem"
right.
i feel like this is how one can discern whether someone is arguing to reach a conclusion or arguing to try to 'win' something. i insulted you, it wasnt an argument dumbass, lol. yet you still blurted out a logical fallacy name
wrong. you were clearly trying to cast me in a negative light to undermine my credibility. that's exactly what ad hom is.