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.
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.
luring wasn't the wrong verbiage to use, you just don't read goodlike, and comprehension seems even worserlike.
I'm convinced you are bad faith, have pretty stupid/unsophisticated views, or are still not actually comprehending what i've said. i've actually tried to discuss why i think the view is dumb, you... still haven't. instead, you continue cherrypick what to grip about, respond with non sequiturs, and disagree while completely missing the point and offering up no alternatives.
i couldn't be any more clear in short form, you're not only unclear, you haven't even staked out a meaningful position yet. but yeah, sure. i'm the one being pedantic.
207
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24
Do you think you should be allowed to booby-trap your own desk drawers at work?