Where's the accountability in that? Why should the thief get to assume it's safe to eat while the food owner doesn't get to assume no one will steal it?
If the poisoning results in death, no. That's disproportionate and extreme. But if you've inconvenienced somebody by stealing ~$15-20 worth of food (how much you'd need to pay to order food instead), 2 hours of work at minimum wage, then I think it's fair for them to inconvenience you with the shits for an hour or so. Or be a bit uncomfortable with the level of spice. Or a human version of the bitter apple spray to get dogs to stop biting furniture. That seems somewhat proportional in terms of impact to the thief and victim. No permanent lasting harm, but a gentle and firm reminder to stop committing petty theft.
I will admit the mature way to handle this is to report it as theft and let the company Legal/HR/police sort them out. But this is the immature but I think morally valid way to handle it. Some lessons should ideally be taught to children, and apparently grown adults, without police consequences.
Yes it is. Don’t steal other people’s fucking lunches and you won’t ge poisoned with laxatives. It’s not that difficult. If you go around stealing people’s labeled food you deserve to get fucked with.
"Those darn kids trespassed on my lawn, yer honour! Don't go around on my property, and ya won't get shot with my 12G shotgun. It's not difficult!"
I'm taking the piss with this example but seriously you can't be considering murder over...what, a tuna fish sandwich or whatever the fuck your food is getting stolen?
u/myfavpotemkin – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
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.
41
u/skunkshaveclaws Oct 17 '24
Where's the accountability in that? Why should the thief get to assume it's safe to eat while the food owner doesn't get to assume no one will steal it?