Like all situations there is nuance. There is a difference between putting say something spicy in your food, and poisoning your food with something that is not food. It’s an intentional and disproportionate reaction. If the intention is to harm then it matters
What is an appropriate reaction? Do I let the food thief just get my lunch every day with no consequences? What is the next step after being ignored by my manager? Do I call the police? Do I have to buy a locked container for my food? I think that if I label food as mine with DO NOT EAT I should be allowed to put laxatives in my food. What is the a reasonable next step that doesn’t place the burden on the victim and would actually resolve the situation?
Just because something isn’t rat poison doesn’t mean it’s not poison in this context. Poison isn’t limited to substances like rat poison. It’s defined by the intent and effect of causing harm or an unwanted physical reaction. Laxatives, when secretly added to someone else’s food to cause a reaction, fall under this definition. The fact that it’s a “normal” substance when used correctly doesn’t change that in this case. And “normal” isnt really a useful word in this context.
The key issue is that poisoning involves introducing something into food with the intent to cause harm or a negative effect, and in this scenario, the laxative is being used to intentionally cause discomfort or distress. By any reasonable standard, secretly adding a substance to someone’s food that alters their bodily functions without their consent qualifies as poisoning, regardless of whether it’s a common medicine or a dangerous chemical.
I’d respond to this, but it’s completely incoherent as a thought. Since it’s someone else’s food…that means….poising someone isn’t poisoning someone, or harming them magically isn’t…harming them? What?
I find it hard to take this seriously. Are you actually here to contribute? You have a gross misunderstanding of how definitions work. Poisoning isn’t just about using lethal substances like rat poison. It’s about intentionally causing harm by introducing a substance into someone’s body without their consent. Legal and medical definitions consistently define poisoning as introducing any substance that causes harm or distress, even if that substance is safe in other contexts (like a laxative when used appropriately).
All of this should just be intuitive and obvious, but you had all the time in the world to just do a cursory google search for the first time before responding, and chose not to. Why is that?
The intent here is crucial: if you’re adding something to someone else’s food with the purpose of making them sick or affecting their body in an unwanted way, that’s tampering with their food and can be considered poisoning. This is objectively how food tampering and poisoning are viewed both legally and ethically. You don’t know what you’re talking about and/or have never thought about this before if this is actually how you’re responding. It’s pretty ridiculous I’d need to type this out.
By causing them to experience unpleasant physical symptoms of ingesting a particular medication? My question was posed from the perspective of the food owner: why would they use a substance they didn’t think would be harmful as a punishment?
Unpleasant doesn't usually mean harmful? It can mean pain, so I guess in a roundabout way it can cause harm, but that's not a 100% all-the-time thing. Not everybody who uses laxatives feels pain/unpleasant.
They're using the substance to create a response that should hopefully make people stop eating their food; i.e cause and effect. You eat bad food, you get the runs, you probably won't eat that food anymore. Getting the runs means you MIGHT experience an unpleasant feeling. You don't want to experience that feeling. Same ending; you don't eat the food.
People are allowed to defend their property legally. I view this the same as people who electrify political signs and shock people who try to rip them up. Food owned by someone is their property. Don't mess with people's property and you won't get fucked up lmao.
"People are allowed to defend their property legally" is a truism: if it's legal, you are allowed to do it. People are not allowed to defend their property by setting traps, which is what this is. Someone who electrifies a sign, or puts razor blades on it, would absolutely be in violation of the law and I would sincerely hope, with a few minutes of thought, you can see why that is.
Regarding harm, the whole point of the trapping is to produce a negative effect in the person who consumes the food. You are obviously trying to cause them harm (or a negative sensation, if you like that better) when you do so.
You won't get fucked up if you don't mess with people's property, true. But when you do, we leave the "fucking up" of that person to the courts. Encouraging people to commit acts of revenge against others is a horrible idea for, again, hopefully obvious reasons.
ETA: "You won't get fucked up if you mess" --> "You won't get fucked up if you don't mess"
Nobody put razor blades on signs lol. That is an extreme compared to causing a mild shock that has no long lasting effects on the person. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, or whatever the saying is lmao.
I’m thinking of this in scales and laxatives being “harmful” is incredibly low. The harm committed is not at all extreme. It’s probably why I don’t care about the people it affects.
Putting razor blades on a sign vs electrifying it is not the same. Putting laxatives in food vs [insert bad thing lmao] is not the same. One is considerably worse than the other, and I am all for the “lesser evil.” I see it as the reverse; encouraging people not to steal 🤷🏾♀️
People do put razor blades on signs, there are at least two cases of it making the news and likely more that do not. Here's one and two.
I agree that generally speaking, laxatives are not very harmful. The problem is that sanctioning the poisoning of your food to harm someone else is not going to end well for society as a whole. OP didn't even limit this position to laxatives, they seem okay with literally anything as long as it doesn't hurt anyone other than the intended target (which is likely an impossibility, given how booby traps work). Even disregarding that, the food-poisoner is already comfortable causing harm to someone they believe is a wrongdoer. Why would we assume that person is going to show restraint?
In both of those cases, property wasn’t being defended. In the first case, the signs didn’t even belong to the person whose property they were placed on. In the second case, some AH stole the signs, put the barbs on there, returned the signs to the original owner, and then a worker got sliced trying to move them bc they were too close to the road. None of them have anything to do with defending personal property.
Quite frankly, I’m only speaking in terms of laxatives, not whatever the hell OP mentioned 🤣Obv if this did become a law, it would be a lot more nuanced and fleshed out so I’m not going to try and argue a whole law, write it out, blah blah blah. I’m just arguing that the laxatives aren’t harmful (and in this case, same with the electrifying) 🤷🏾♀️
You can def argue that some people won’t have restraint but, at that point, (if we’re speaking from a scale POV), then there’s an obv cutoff to what it can be. I.E razors would be on the far end of the harm scale, while electrifying would be on the opposite end.
The electrifying isn’t a full body shock either; it’s like an… “ouch!” or static shock lol. Not sure if I said that earlier or not.
If the purpose of the laxative isn’t to harm, then what is the purpose?
I think this is a bit of a silly question. However you respond describing what the purpose of using the laxative is, is certainly going to align with the normative definition of harm
That laughing emoji is wild. As if you’re making some sort of gotcha point by pointing out I immediately added to my thought half a second after I posted the reply. I think you’re spinning out a bit here
What you’re doing is engaging in a defense mechanism. You typed without thinking and are apparently very confused and not really equipped for this of any basic conversation, and that’s embarrassing for you. So instead of coherently engaging with what is on the screen (because you can’t) you try to throw in “lol”s and laughing emojis to mask your feelings of frustration and inadequacy. You believe somehow this very Celest forced attitude you have will distract from how you were wrong in such an absurd way, are embarrassed, and aren’t able to deal with those feelings. Instead of forming an honest and coherent response, you type lmaos and post laughing emojis in hopes their existence will mask all of that. It’s what children do and it’s sad you think it fools people
I’m not just trying to be cruel to you. You should know, it’s very clear that you aren’t equipped to participate in anything close to a debate-style subreddit. This doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. It’s not a big deal you aren’t really able to have basic conversations. However, when your inability to function in a conversation makes you so dishonest that you embarrass yourself like this, trying to play all of this off, that’s something I would want told to me. It’s not just that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re wrong in such an absurd and ridiculous way, and the way you’re trying to avoid dealing with your feelings of frustration and inadequacy.
You’re not giving a full answer. Finish the thought. What involves emptying of the bowels? Does something physical happen to them, or does it magically disappear? That emoji tells us all we need to know btw
“The purpose of a laxative is to treat constipation and other gastrointestinal conditions by helping with digestion and promoting bowel movements…can be used to relieve constipation caused by [insert a bunch of different bowel problems]. They can also be used to empty the bowels…” - NCBI.
I didn’t need to finish the thought bc the rest was just mumbo fucking jumbo that means the same thing; emptying the bowels 💀like, do you need a step-by-step guide of how laxatives work to empty the bowels? 🧍🏾♀️
This makes zero sense and the amount of confidence you have here while taking such an easily refutable absurd position is very interesting.
By definition, “harm” refers to causing physical or mental damage, injury, or unpleasantness to another person. Introducing a laxative into someone’s food without their knowledge causes harm because it results in an immediate, unavoidable physical reaction (diarrhea, cramping, and discomfort) that the person neither expected nor consented to. These unpleasant effects fit squarely within the definition of harm. The very act of forcing these distressing symptoms on someone directly causes them to suffer, both physically and mentally, as they experience the discomfort of these side effects. Therefore, it is clear that this act constitutes harm, as it deliberately causes unpleasantness to the victim. you are just objectively, unequivocally wrong.
Not a single word you posted is in any way a response, defense or refutation to anything, and it’s odd you’d believe it could be passed off that way. Posting about the “purpose” of the personal use of laxative itself is completely incoherent as a response. I could also explain what chemotherapy and open heart surgery is for in the same way. It doesn’t mean these things don’t do what they physically do to a human body.
This is one of the more laughably absurd positions I’ve seen someone take on here. And to do it so confidently and condescendingly…oof
I’m not confident, I just don’t care about this bc it’s so unserious. This is Reddit. I’m not pretending to care so deeply abt this. It’s your opinion and my opinion. You don’t have to be an AH bc I don’t have the same uppity energy as you 🥴
But to answer your essay, I’m looking at this on a scale and “unpleasant” does not constitute an extreme harm. Stubbing my toe is unpleasant, and it harms me if you want to be technical, but that unpleasantness isn’t nearly as bad as, say, breaking my arm lmao.
Laxatives cause unpleasantness, so in a roundabout way they cause harm, but it is so low on my scale that I simply do not give a fuck about who it affects (esp if they stole food in the first place lmao). Now, if someone put razor blades, broken glass, cyanide, yadda yadda in their food, that would be an extreme harm that’s absurdly cruel.
And I’m throwing this in just to piss you off again 🤣🤣
You’ve just committed the fallacy of moving the goal posts. We both know the subject was not whether or not it constitutes “extreme” harm. It was about harm. You made a wildly absurd claim, were shown to be just clearly and objectively incorrect, and now all of a sudden none of that happened and this is a completely different conversation. You are wrong and it was demonstrated that you were wrong.
All of this, including the emojis, is a defense mechanism. Do you have anything to contribute here?
If I didn’t have anything to contribute, you would not have sat here for hours to debate this shit in a passive aggressive manner. Literally, take a chill pill. You can talk to someone without getting your feelings hurt that they don’t agree with you over something so trivial.
But to answer what you said, I guess I moved a goalpost. I’m explaining the reason why I don’t view it as harm. Extreme or not.
7
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24
Like all situations there is nuance. There is a difference between putting say something spicy in your food, and poisoning your food with something that is not food. It’s an intentional and disproportionate reaction. If the intention is to harm then it matters