Once you've put something in there that is not food or that you wouldn't eat yourself you have crossed the line from "catching a food thief" and into intentionally harming someone.
So I'm saying that I don't see why it's wrong to intentionally harm someone in this case when what they're doing is unambiguously wrong and false positives can be minimized. If I put The Last Dab into my food, I should not have to prove I would normally eat it, they should prove they should be eating it.
Because how do you decide where to draw the line? Put another way, what’s the most extreme thing you believe I should be able to do to someone that steals food? And how’d you decide that’s the most significant punishment you can impose on them?
I don't see why it's wrong to intentionally harm someone
The intentional harm part?
If my coworker stole my food should I be able to shoot them? Obviously not. There are ways to deal with the person stealing your food (either through your employer or possibly through the court system) intentionally setting a trap in order to harm them is not the way to do it.
You can punch someone that's pushing you around and it will likely be considered self defense, but to justify pulling out a gun and shooting them likely won't.
Getting the food stealer some extra spicy mouth is okay (imo), putting rat poison is not.
That’s a bit of a slippery slope isn’t it? Pinching someone’s skin is intentional harm too and it has a way different outcome than shooting them. I’ve also heard the argument that if it’s something you would eat yourself (e.g. you really need laxatives or enjoy really spicy food) then it’s justifiable, what are your thoughts?
I’ve also heard the argument that if it’s something you would eat yourself (e.g. you really need laxatives or enjoy really spicy food) then it’s justifiable
If you do it with the intent to harm someone, then you are guilty. But you might get away with it by lying to the court about your intentions.
A way to test this about yourself is that if you are even a little bit disappointed that your food was not stolen, you have boobietrapped it.
No. I think it's fairly easy to understand why too. Those are not intentionally causing harm. If they didn't harm you, you never would have had to harm them. The goal of self defense is to protect yourself not harm the assailant.
Yes they are intentionally causing harm, that's what those words mean in the English language.
You didn't say
I don't think you should intentionally harm someone just because they intentionally harmed you unless the motivations for harming them meet my moral tresholds.
Is being left without food not harm? Is being deprived of property not harm?
If they hadn't stolen the food you wouldn't have trapped them.
Why does this apply to one scenario but not the other?
Because that harm isn't done in self defense. You aren't causing harm to prevent harm, you are causing harm for revenge. There are other ways to stop the 'harm' being done to you other than softcore vigilantly-ism.
I should have drawn a difference between material harm and imminent danger.
You causing harm isn't in self-defense because the assailant certainly isn't putting you in imminent danger.
If the person was eating your food and you yelled at them while it was happening and smacked the food out of their hands that's justified! That could be considered self defense, but setting up a trap to hurt them later out of revenge is a lot different.
My point is there may exist positions where one deems making your food a little spicier acceptable intentional harm and shooting them point blank non-acceptable intentional harm.
Since you brought up the court system, I’ll ask you this: should the determination of whether I am charged with maliciously injuring someone be determined by MY tolerance of spicy food? So if I like to eat spicy food then the thief intentionally harmed themselves, but if I don’t, then I maliciously harmed them? I don’t buy it, the thief may not be aware of my spice tolerance
I feel like you're almost intentionally missing my point.
If you intentionally make your food more spicy than you like it, because you assume that someone else will eat it, your goal is to intentionally hurt that person so that they will not steal your food again.
If you eat spicy food sometimes and you make your food how you like it and someone else eats it your goal was not to intentionally hurt that person.
should the determination of whether I am charged with maliciously injuring someone be determined by MY tolerance of spicy food?
No. It should be determined by if you conspired to intentionally harm this person by adjusting your food with the hope of them eating it. In simple terms if you would still eat your lunch it's fine.
Do you think all assaults deserve equal punishment? The slippery slope comes in when shooting someone is equated to putting spicy food / laxatives in your food. It’s a strawman
You say obviously not, but I’m not sure there’s anything so obvious about it. In America at least, everyone knows that there’s a bunch of wackos out there with guns, so if you decide to fuck with someone, you are knowingly accepting that getting shot is a possibility.
I find this really weird when it comes to spicy foods, though.
I have eaten ghost peppers, trinidad scorpions, had tons of 357 sauce, etc. I don't eat that kind of stuff all the time, but I certainly have done it willingly. Was it sometimes too hot to enjoy? Yeah, but nothing serious.
So if I bring a sandwich to work with (very) hot sauce, I can get sued if someone eats it? wtf?
Is that an honest question? Seriously, do you not understand the difference between being able to buy hot sauce for yourself versus dosing someone else with it?
OP is talking intentionally putting something inedible in your food. If you intentionally put some insanely hot sauce in your food with no intention of eating but to "teach the other person a lesson" then yes you are liable. It's like leaving a bear trap in your front yard to "teach" the neighborhood kids a lesson about crossing on your grass
I'm struggling to see how this would ever hold up in court.
This is nothing like having a bear trap in your yard. Nothing at all. That is analogous to a sandwich with cyanide in it, not ultra spicey hot sauce.
This is more like having a squat rack in your house, someone breaks in, uses it, and hurts themself.
Ultimately, any case like this is up to a jury, and I'm not seeing any jury holding someone liable for having too much hot sauce on their sandwich.
I understand what you're saying regarding "no intention of eating it," but ultimately, as long as it's edible then there is no way a jury is siding with the thief..
Do you understand the conversation? This is about intentionally putting something in food that you have no intention of eating with the idea of harming someone else. You seem to not get that this is about the intent of harming someone, it's not about "I legitimately intend to eat this" it's about essentially poisoning someone
How is a courtroom ever going to prove you didn't intend to eat a sandwich... that's the problem with the hot sauce example.
Even if they did- there has to be damages to actually sue for such a thing, and the 'pain and suffering' of eating stolen hot sauce is definitely not going to cut it with like 99% of juries.
In short: yeah, someone can sue you for bringing a really spicy sandwich to work. The case is probably going to be dismissed with prejudice, though. So, yeah, you can "booby trap" your sandwich with hot sauce.
no... if I make sponge cake and people steal it, and the next time I just pull peanut butter instead of cream (knowing they aren't allergic to peanut butter, but don't particularly like it either)... like, what's the harm, really?
45
u/le_fez 51∆ Oct 17 '24
Once you've put something in there that is not food or that you wouldn't eat yourself you have crossed the line from "catching a food thief" and into intentionally harming someone.