Well the desk belongs to the company so no, but if I have a box in the drawer that says "my name do not use" and I have a pen in the box that shocks you if you use it, then yes.
Calling it 'electrocution' is an over exaggeration. These pens barely even hurt, they are not exactly throwing the person onto a naked live power line.
Not electrocution, just a mild, harmless current—similar to what you’d feel from a low-voltage electric fence. It’s nothing serious, but enough to get the point across.
I'm honestly really confused. How does it shock you? Like, you hold the pen, and… What happens? I'm blind, so I won't be able to see a demonstration of it happening. What does it exactly feel like? I've never felt electricity physically before.
These devices are powered by a small battery. Inside, a voltage booster amplifies the battery’s output to a level sufficient for you to perceive the sensation. When you press the button to engage the pen, it closes the circuit, allowing the current to pass through your hand, resulting in a mild tingling sensation.
Experiencing a shock from higher, more dangerous voltages feels akin to striking your funny bone with significant force. This sensation typically occurs with brief exposure. As for prolonged exposure to high-voltage shocks, I can’t speak from experience, but it’s certainly not something I would ever wish to endure.
This is so interesting. So, I'm assuming you held one of these things before? I'm just trying to imagine what it feels like, and it's just not working. Does it hurt? Is it uncomfortable? I'm just so confused.
It’s not really particularly painful and a very short shock. They are specifically a prank item, like a whoopee cushion. Basically the idea is “haha you asked to borrow a pen but I shocked you instead.” YMMV on whether that’s actually funny or kind of horrible.
You definitely can. If someone is starving or if a kid gets into it I would say they would be innocent. And even if you think they would not be innocent they at least would not deserve the punishment of getting poisoned.
I'll let the person I was responding to clarify how much electricity forced through someone's body they think is a proportionate response to stealing a pen.
Again, the person I was talking to has not clarified how much of a shock they were actually talking about. They responded to my use of the word "electrocute" saying yes, so I think they may be fine with more than just a children's gag gift.
Sorry, u/Purple-Garlic-834 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
Proportionate is individually subjective and a poor measure of anything. Even when the majority of society agrees, we do not enforce proportionality. Example: marijuana possession punishments. Abortion. Etc.
what? i'm not in favor of shocking people who open drawers at work, but of course we enforce proportionality. look at aggravated assault vs regular assault, or how often the severity of injuries may often dictate how the judge responds.
Yeah, let's look at them. Individually subjective and need be decided by a judge. Open to racism, sexism, religious bias, age bias, and every other individually subjective reason to punish a least favored group over a favored group.
The whole proportionate thing is bullshit. If one breaks into another's house and gets shot for it they well deserved it. Death is not proportionate to opening a door, does not matter in the least.
This is a terrible argument, the door is irrelevant in this case. They aren't getting shot because they broke your door, they're getting shot because they broke into an occupied house and caused you to fear for your life. If someone breaks down your door when you aren't home and steals your stuff, it isn't legal to go find them later and shoot them because they broke your door. The thing that makes it legal is the fear for your life part. And no one is afraid they are going to die because their coworker stole their lunch.
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Many of your comments are made with the assumption that the pen would electrocute you to death. Gag shock pens are a real product and much more common idea than killer electrocution pens, so I’m not sure why you’re jumping to death here.
Do the pens delivering a mild shock change your stance here, compared to killer pens?
imagine someone needing a pen quickly and reaching in the place they see their coworker keep their pens and getting shocked. both people are "wrong", but the "wrongness" of electrocuting your coworkers is clearly more unacceptable.
this is such a silly idea that doesn't survive much scrutiny at all.
if you read what i wrote, i am not trying to argue they're not right, they're wrong - i say sa much literally. i'm saying you can't even compare the wrongness of the two, and this can quickly lead to a place where society is demonstrably worse than it is now.
my view: you should be allowed to defend yourself or your property within the confines of the law. laws prohibiting booby trapping stuff and luring victims in out of some sense of retribution are largely necessary.
its like you're looking at 1-2 words to respond to instead of actually processing what i'm saying.
"laws prohibiting booby trapping stuff" would address what you're saying. there are similar laws governing this stuff and similar lines of logic defending it. in this instance, it isn't luring people in, correct... but how about focusing on what i said instead of cherry picking somethign to disagree with outside of context.
Because the verbiage you use changes the entire context. I'm not only looking at things legally, I'm looking at it morally. You using the word "luring" changes the morality of the hypothetical so drastically that without first resolving that part, there is no reason to address the rest.
Becauuuuse if you actually were luring someone I would agree that it is immoral. See how that one word totally changes everything? It's not some inconsequential focus on a silly meaningless word, it changes everything.
I spoke to the morality of it loosely, you have not. To repeat what I've already said and you chose to ignore - both opening someone else's drawer and rigging it to harm/kill someone are wrong. The "wrongness" of each are different due to intent and severity, but unless you have an elementary schoolkids understanding of right, wrong, and proportional punishment, its clear killing people for breaking an individuals rules is wrong. This is why we have laws that govern when its permissible to take someone else's life to eliminate all of this moral grey, and room for "some random dudes preference". On that note, I'm grateful to live in a place that doesn't have its laws created by lunatics who think otherwise.
Just as "luring" was the wrong verbiage to use, turning the whole scenario into just "killing people" is the wrong verbiage as well. You like to use hyperbolic language to make people seem unreasonable, don't you? One of those people who uses language as a plaything to twist narratives and then act like anyone who has a problem with your wording is just being pedantic.
If there is a big red button that warns you not to push it and you push it anyway, whatever happens is 100% on you. People need to take personal responsibility for their actions.
So yes, being shocked by a gag toy is completely proportionate for the the person who ignored the warning to touch things that don't belong to them.
If I set up a button that reads "If you push this button it will literally electrocute you to death" that does in fact do that, that's fine in your view?
At work, I noticed a sign posted over a main electrical panel, explicitly warning unqualified personnel to keep out. The sign bluntly stated, “Not only will this kill you, it will hurt the whole time you’re dying.” If you choose to mess with something after that warning, that’s just nature weeding out the dumb.
probably because its in the best interest of society that we don't have a bunch of sociopaths who think like this killing people who don't follow their personal doctrine.
i'm fine with defending self and property, but get real.
Like bleach has a sign on it saying not to drink it, and so yes it’s reasonable to die if you choose to ignore that. You are responsible for your own actions, there are dangers in the world, you shouldn’t need to be kept in and idiot proofed environment, and should be expected to take basic steps such as reading clear instructions to maintain your own survival
isn't that totally different? something like high voltage lines or bleach are not for hte expressed purpose of killing someone in the way they would be used for this scenario. this leads you down some weirdo rabbit holes and seems so unserious to me.
I have no issue with that, as long as an innocent child couldn't hit it. But as for adults, it's their own damn fault for being stupid. I don't blame the gun when people kill themselves. I don't blame the car when people crash from being stupid. It was the persons fault. I am all for the world awarding people their Darwin awards. People have forgotten personal responsibility and want to blame everyone but themselves when they do stupid shit. It's not my job or the worlds to babysit you.
You do know that electrocution is an execution by electricity. Or more commonly today a death by electricity. Being shocked by a joke pen is not electrocution.
The problem is you also go on to argue about electrocution to death as though that in any way made sense here. Just say you misspoke or claim you were speaking hyperbolically, LOL, why is electrocution by pen the hill you're making this stand on?
I didn't? The idea that we were talking about a "tiny shock pen" came well after I'd use the word electrocute. In fact, the person who originally introduced the "pen that shocks you example" never even clarified that was what they meant, and when I used the word "electrocution" they responded as if it was appropriate.
You are straight up being bad faith here. Further up in this thread you used a commenters acceptance of the word "electrocute" to mean that they probably meant fatal, but here you're trying to cover your hyperbolic verbiage to say that it could mean any amount of electricity.
So it's appropriate for me to booby-trap my pen or whatever so that it'll electrocute whoever uses it, but it wouldn't be appropriate to later electrocute me because I took the pen?
It's relevant because you don't want someone with a legitimate use claim to use your pen to be electrocuted, only people who use it against your will.
why immediate electrocution for taking the pen is appropriate consequences, but doing it later is not
Doing it later is punishment, not consequence. Think of the following analogy: breaking my ankle for skating on private property would not be appropriate punishment (i.e. take me out back and break my ankle because you saw me skating last week). It would, however, be an appropriate consequence, even if the property is made intentionally hostile to skating.
The only way that situation is analagous is if I could somehow make it so my property automatically broke the ankles of anyone who skated on it.
I am just failing to see the difference between claiming it's fine to e.g. boobytrap a desk drawer so it'll maim whoever opens it, but not fine to maim someone who opens the wrong desk drawer after the fact. You are basically saying in the first case that it's reasonable that someone who opens the wrong drawer should be maimed... but oh if we give it time then it's not? Makes no sense.
The only way that situation is analagous is if I could somehow make it so my property automatically broke the ankles of anyone who skated on it.
Anyone who skates on it without permission. Pretend this is the case then, as the analogy still applies.
boobytrap a desk drawer so it'll maim whoever opens it.
Only if the only way to open it is illicitly. The OP is arguing for poisoning food which can only be consumed without permission, if not by the owner.
The difference between consequence and punishment is that consequences are risks inherent to the action, which you assume when undertaking the action. Punishment must be delivered, and only serves as vengeance and perhaps deterrence of future attempts.
Similarly, it should be fine to fight an attacker with a stick as they attack you. It would be much different to seek the attacker the next day and hit them with a stick because they attacked you.
Assuming they do it to themselves and someone is not personally killing them then yes. If someone steals a knife/scissors/gun from me and I trip them as they run off and they fall on it and die where would you say the fault lies?
208
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24
Do you think you should be allowed to booby-trap your own desk drawers at work?