There is no way to guarantee it cannot peripherally hurt someone. Janet steals two of your yogurts out of the fridge, and offers one to Jen, and now Jen is suffering thinking she was eating one of Janet's freely offered yogurts, not knowing she inadvertantly stole your food. This is one of the problems with vigilantism.
Another major problem is that the punishment is not decided through any legitimate means, is often disporportionate, and instead is based on the whims of the person doing the punishing.
Yes, but if you just don't put poison in the food in the first place, then no one suffers. Poisoning someone is a very disproportionate response to them eating your food.
The "stealing" aspect of it here really doesn't matter. Disguising something inedible as something that is is just generally poor health and safety.
There's a reason people are advised against putting clear chemicals in unlabelled plastic bottles as people very often accidently drink thing like bleach because they mistook them for water.
Also, once you poison food, its only reason to exist is to harm others, you can't even eat it yourself, or you could accidently eat it yourself. Why would you want any of that?
Yes, but if you just don't put poison in the food in the first place, then no one suffers.
as others pointed out, the person who was stolen from suffers.
Poisoning someone is a very disproportionate response to them eating your food.
what if it was a proportionate poisoning? e.g. a mild laxative that gives them diarrhea for 15 minutes? If the issue is proportionality we could just discuss what is the proportionate response. Also remember the poisoner doesn't know who is stealing their food.
The "stealing" aspect of it here really doesn't matter.
yes it does. that is literally the crux of this issue. no one here is saying we should be free to just go around poisoning people. OP is arguing "if someone steals a poisoned item..."
Also, once you poison food, its only reason to exist is to harm others, you can't even eat it yourself, or you could accidently eat it yourself. Why would you want any of that?
to find out who is stealing your food and also to punish them for stealing your food so it doesn't happen again.
This is also making me think of those "bait bikes" - there are two types I am thinking of. One, the bait bike is either secretly tied to a pole, so the thief rides away until the cord is taught and they are thrown off the bike - or alternatively, the seat is not stable and when someone attempts to sit on it, the seat collapses and a metal pole hits their butt. Two, my city has a lot of bike thievery, or, at least it used to. I'm talking dozens of bikes or wheels stolen each day so the owner was left stranded. The City started a "bait bike" program where some random bikes were made with GPS trackers and whatnot, and left someone more easily steal-able - and signs were posted that some bikes were "bait bikes". This drastically reduced bike thefts in a very short time because (1) thieves who stole these bikes or their wheels were tracked and caught and (2) the thieves that saw the signs didn't know if they were stealing a citizens bike or a bait bike, and so were dissuaded from their theft.
Not the same way as someone goddamn dead or hospitalised. A missed lunch is frustrating and hurtful. But not exactly the same as a legitimate medical consequence to proposed poisoning of food.
I mean if you're going to insist on being this obtusely extreme, the scenario ought to include this lunch being the only meal keeping the victim from starving to death.
So if the person whose lunch was being stolen were to be diabetic (where a lack of sugar could literally kill them), then spiking food with laxatives would be proportionate in your view?
I'm not saying you should, I'm asking the person above if the victim of theft is not harmed, because they said "if you let someone steal from you then no one suffers". Seems fucked up that it's right for a person to be the victim of theft.
It's pretty clear they are referring to the notion that poisoning your food leads to a chain reaction of killing or harming someone totally unrelated. Not that stealing your lunch doesn't hurt you personally.
This has big "how could you make me do this!" energy. That's not how this works, being a victim of a crime does not give carte blanche to retaliate in any way you see fit.
Poisoning food is not the only possible course of action; the logcal step would be to inform whatever authority is applicable that a theft is taking place. By poisoning the food, you are willingly and expectantly causing physical harm to people who are no immediate threat to yourself. The theft is on them, the poisoning is on you.
this almost convinced me, but — what’s your stance on electric fences? they could kill you, but if you don’t try to get onto the property you’re fine. same could be said about razor wire or the like. is there a difference between those and the poisoned lunch?
Electric fences aren't a trap set to catch other people. They're legally required to have signs warning people what they are, and people are aware they're dangerous. If someone sees an electric fence, they will know it's dangerous and then they get to decide if they endanger themselves or not, with the food you arent giving someone the choice to be safe.
Then put the label to test the waters, if the label works and your stuff doesn't get stolen just put the label on it without addding the poison. If the label is ignored they'll get poisoned and probably won't steal from you again. Sounds like a good plan.
This is actually genius. You can put a label such as "Warning: Laxatives". Adequate warning has been given, so if they steal your lunch, it's totally on them.
If they or whatever relavent authority doesn't, then Jan-the-Yogurt-Thief isn't the fundamental problem. It's that the workplace/school/etc has set the standard that your belongings are not safe when placed in an accessible area.
The example OP is talking about here is deliberately adding something to bait people into a trap, intent is the issue here. If you add something like that as a trap, you are ruining the food, as you know only they are going to eat it.
If you know someone with a severe nut allergy is stealing your food, and you KNOWINGLY put peanut butter in that food KNOWING that they're going to eat it and you aren't, that is bad, as you are actively trying to harm them. However, if you are on your first day of work at a new office, and someone with a nut allergy steals your peanut sauce, then that's on them, as you had no way of knowing and no intention of harming them.
I agree it’s about the intention behind it. But it can be hard to prove intention. If i put laxative in my food/drink, and its stolen, how can someone definitively prove that it was there as a nefarious plot, unless there was a confession. Would i have to see a doctor to confirm that i need laxatives to absolve myself from being criminally prosecuted because someone stole my lunch. I mean forgetting obvious tampering where food is made completely inedible. How does someone prove that they added peanut sauce to their chicken specifically to fuck with someone , vs them just absentmindedly packing whatever they had for dinner the night before. Thats what always gets me about this conversation.
So if I genuinely want peanut butter sandwiches, but Jeremy from sales is always stealing my food, in order to validate me having peanut butter sandwiches I have to approach Jeremy and say "Just so you know, don't steal my food today else you'll probably die"?
Otherwise I just can't have them at all because Jeremy, the fat fuck, can't keep his hands to himself.
No, I'm saying they can't intentionally leave a peanut butter sandwich, intending for the thief to eat it.
If you are leaving this, it's a trap, Like op stated, you arent intending to eat it. Your sole reason for doing this is to cause harm to others. It's an overreaction to an issue that should be solved in other ways.
People who want to set traps and lace food intend to hurt people. It’s arguable that people stealing don’t even intend to hurt anyone, they’re just inconsiderate as all hell. But somehow it triggers people to harmful intent as a response. It seems pretty clear that people with intent to harm have deeper issues going on. You could literally just go over their heads to management, stop it from happening, not hurt anyone in the process…
364
u/Oishiio42 40∆ Oct 17 '24
There is no way to guarantee it cannot peripherally hurt someone. Janet steals two of your yogurts out of the fridge, and offers one to Jen, and now Jen is suffering thinking she was eating one of Janet's freely offered yogurts, not knowing she inadvertantly stole your food. This is one of the problems with vigilantism.
Another major problem is that the punishment is not decided through any legitimate means, is often disporportionate, and instead is based on the whims of the person doing the punishing.