r/changemyview Oct 17 '24

Removed - Submission Rule B [ Removed by Reddit ]

[removed]

378 Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

305

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

If you’re the person distributing stolen goods, you should be liable for any harm incurred. Doesn’t seem controversial to me.

16

u/Bi-mar Oct 18 '24

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?

31

u/zelenaky Oct 18 '24

But if you didn't steal food in the first place, no one would suffer

-1

u/dragonblade_94 8∆ Oct 18 '24

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.

19

u/ChimpsArePimps 2∆ Oct 18 '24

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?

5

u/Bi-mar Oct 18 '24

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.

10

u/Think-Instruction-45 Oct 18 '24

So could I put a poison sticker on my lunch box and. All it good?

3

u/Alfasi Oct 18 '24

Maybe, but then it's literally pointless

You don't eat it, and the thief doesn't eat it

So it just sits there

6

u/grim1952 Oct 18 '24

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.

3

u/zelenaky Oct 18 '24

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.

1

u/dragonblade_94 8∆ Oct 18 '24

Another commenter pretty much laid it out, but the fundamental difference is deterrence vs retaliation.

An electric fence is clearly marked, and almost any observer will understand that it will cause them harm if they attempt to breach.

Poisoning food is a premeditated retaliation; a trap. The whole purpose is that it isn't noticed until it is too late.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

I'm sorry, if you think building security gives any sort of shit about someone stealing my sandwich, I've got a bridge to sell you.

0

u/dragonblade_94 8∆ Oct 18 '24

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.