439
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
439 points (94.2% liked)
News
23376 readers
1974 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I keep seeing the sentiment in this thread that if you go to prison you basically deserve whatever happens to you, which is a fucked up stance in itself, but more importantly:
Why do the cows, chickens, etc. deserve to suffer because someone is in prison? Does that make sense in any moral framework? How would you feel if we bagged random people not guilty of anything and forced prisoners to watch them tortured "on their behalf" as a form of punishment? That's pretty much the same situation ethically and everyone would agree it's fucked up.
Wait I'm legitimately confused about this.
I agree with you in the first paragraph.
I'm confused about what you mean by animals suffering because someone is in prison. Don't they suffer regardless of if someone is in prison? Like, the animal would die and be eaten, regardless of where the meat is sent.
I'm pro animal rights and all that btw, I just don't get the connection you are making here.
The meals will (I assume) be allocated on inmate numbers, so the animal will be reared, killed, transported, then thrown in the trash because someone doesn't want to eat it.
More generally this is the weird 'opt out' culture of food, where vegan is considered the exceptional position, which is kinda stupid, in my opinion.
Why would the default be the diet of a small minority?
Because humans don't need meat to survive.
Humans don't need anything but nutrient slop to survive, but the prisons aim for something better largely because it keeps riots down.
Sure, but you could e.g. start with slop and then let people request something different. That's what I meant by 'default'. Perhaps there's a better world?
I sure there's a fancy word in psychology, but it's like if everyone is given choice x automatically, then it shouldn't be a surprise that x seems to be what people prefer.
I've noticed a similar thing in the Subway sandwich store: there are approximately the same number of vegetables and meats available, but if you look at the menu there is just one 'veggie' option, and a multitude of different meat combinations.
You could, but the only reason to do so would be to accommodate a small minority's ethical dietary decisions, which is the opposite of a default.
No one's going to chose the slop so there's no point in having it.
As for subway, their menu is largely determined by sales. They do trial other options occasionally, and the ones that are popular stay.
Here's the definition of default I'm using (from Google):
My argument is that the default meal including meat is what makes including meat the most popular choice, not the other way around.
It's not weird that it specifies a computer program, the use of the term to mean the standard option comes from computing. It's the value chosen when the computer defaults, as in fails to pay it's debt (in this case debt being the value it was looking for).
I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that people prefer meat because it's the default option and not the other way around.
They're saying that animals suffer because people eat them. That, therefore, all humans should be forced to a vegan diet.
They did not say that at all. They said, if you are a vegan and consider animal slaughter a form of torture for animals and you are for some reason imprisoned, is it reasonable punishment to force you to accept this torture of a third party (the animals) on your behalf?
Ah ok, I get what you are saying now. Got it.
I think the missing link is that the prison warden doesn't even think about the animals - they just think, this is food, eat the food. They aren't intentionally causing animal suffering, its just a build in part of the system that society as a whole has accepted as normal. So someone not eating the food is just being annoying, in their eyes, regardless of their reasons.
Is this ethical? Fundamentally no, because it accepts animal suffering as a premise. But it makes sense why the prison isn't accommodating them.
that is what you believe they think, it is not at all what they said.