The purpose of using SBF as an example is not to paint him as a victim in need of help. It is a useful exercise that invites the people that are ideologically o

The purpose of using SBF as an example is not to paint him as a victim in need of help. It is a useful exercise that invites the people that are ideologically opposed to the idea of humane treatment in prisons to pop up and voice their reasoning for force feeding vegans meat and denying people prescribed medication. > so shine a light on their cases to garner sympathy, support and mindshare towards reform. And > now complaining about having to eat peanut butter because he refuses more nutritious food. Are incompatible statements. In your final sentence you literally say that the problem is not the availability for vegans to have access to their diet. You cannot logically claim to care about jails providing reasonable diets to prisoners while simultaneously placing the blame squarely on a prisoner. You either think that the state punitively denying someone a reasonable diet and prescription medication is a good thing or a bad thing. There is no inbetween. Even if you use “deterrent” style rhetoric to lend legitimacy to your personal enjoyment of seeing somebody you dislike suffer, you are still pointing at the state punitively denying people access to reasonable diet accommodation and prescription medication and saying “This is a good thing.” Like, it’s kind of funny that you’re giving me tips on how to better illustrate this problem to people that are against inhumane treatment in jails. You’re not even the audience for such a thing because you are ideologically in favor of the phenomenon.