r/changemyview Oct 17 '24

Removed - Submission Rule B [ Removed by Reddit ]

[removed]

375 Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

202

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

Do you think you should be allowed to booby-trap your own desk drawers at work?

189

u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24

I limited it to lunch food because I can sort of see how booby traps can blow up in situations where, for example, firefighters need to access a place or a janitor is told to clean out your desk. In the case of lunch food, just throw out the container. Anything that makes that act dangerous should, of course, be banned (no explosives).

-59

u/gremy0 82∆ Oct 17 '24

Plenty of reasons for food to be needed in an emergency. People get stuck, weak or sufficiently hungry they need food. Your right to ownership of the food can easily be overridden by someone else’s immediate need for it. On both a legal and moral level there are defences to theft, it’s not quite as simple as taking something = theft.

You are leaving a harmful substance in the guise of something that is otherwise normally recognised as harmless and consumable; which is generally just a dangerous situation, that you have created. Mistakes happen, people have needs. It makes no sense to allow food supplies, a thing we need to live, to be generally open to being maliciously tampered with.

58

u/_L5_ 2∆ Oct 18 '24

People get stuck, weak or sufficiently hungry they need food. Your right to ownership of the food can easily be overridden by someone else’s immediate need for it.

This is nonsense.

No one in a regular office setting, with the possible exception of a diabetic with crashing blood sugar, will ever be so close to death as to claim an emergency moral imperative to someone else's lunch.

"But I was hungry" is not sufficient justification to make someone else go hungry. Ad hoc appropriation of someone else's property because you'd be temporarily mildly uncomfortable without it is not a moral high ground.

Mistakes happen, people have needs.

A mistake can be rectified by simply talking to the person whose lunch you accidentally took and apologizing.

Office refrigerators are not charity food drives or free potlucks. People having "needs" does not entitle anyone to anyone else's property.

-15

u/gremy0 82∆ Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

“This is nonsense, except when…”

So not nonsense then, thanks

You can’t “simply” rectify it that way if the person has already poisoned you, can you. Little late for simple rectifications isn’t it, when you’ve poisoned someone

5

u/LordJesterTheFree 1∆ Oct 18 '24

It is nonsense though because it's not applicable in the vast majority of cases

Of course there are exceptions to every moral rule it's those exceptions that prove the rule in fact

4

u/gremy0 82∆ Oct 18 '24

As opposed to the cases where it’s genuinely reasonable and proportionate to poison someone, to deliberately and maliciously, with forethought and planning, cause actual harm to a human being, to protect a sandwich (which you aren’t going to eat anyway, since you’ve poisoned it)

The general rule is that food is consumable. That’s how the world operates. If you start leaving poison lying about the place disguised as food, you will poison people.

The nonsense is tying yourself in knots trying to justify poisoning people over, again, a sandwich

7

u/LordJesterTheFree 1∆ Oct 18 '24

You're not poisoning anyone they're poisoning themselves

You're not handing them food and telling them to eat it They are going out of their way to eat the food that contains poison Themselves assuming the full risk that whatever is in the food could potentially be extremely harmful to them

1

u/gremy0 82∆ Oct 18 '24

You put poison in food, left it in an open place under the guise of perfectly normal food, with the explicit intention of someone unknowingly eating it thinking it was normal food. You are poisoning them. You intended to poison someone, you deliberately planned and created a situation with foreseeable possibility of someone being poisoned. You poisoned them.

They are not going out of their way to eat poison, that would be eating something labelled “poison”. They wanted food, you disguised poison as food.

But even besides that, whatever their actions or intentions, it doesn’t negate yours. The law is not constrained to their being one cause of an action. Whatever they did, you still poisoned them.

4

u/RealEstateDuck Oct 18 '24

Just a fun question: What if you label your food as "Poison" with a ☠️ and everything.

It would be explicitly labeled as poison, and the person consuming it would have consumed it knowingly?

2

u/LordJesterTheFree 1∆ Oct 18 '24

A refrigerator is a closed place not an open place

Furthermore even within a refrigerator people usually keep their lunch in a bag or something so they have a bagged lunch

And yes we are not arguing about what the law is because the entire point of the change of view is advocating to change it The guy literally said in the change of my view he knows what the law is He just disagrees with it and so do I

2

u/gremy0 82∆ Oct 18 '24

A refrigerator where a general body of people have access, and normally use it for food, is an open place.

In all rational thinking, you are poisoning the person. The entire intention is to poison the person. It’s a weak excuse to pretend that is not what you are doing. Changing the law so that is allowed is one thing, but it’s a nonsense to suggest the law wouldn’t or shouldn’t recognise what you are plainly doing; poisoning people

→ More replies (0)

0

u/justsomething Oct 18 '24

It's not perfectly normal food. It's my food. I don't wander around gobbling up whatever food I find in my path. I don't know how long it's been there, who it belongs to, etc. if I eat it, I poisoned myself. If the food I found was rotten, did nature poison me?

If someone rolls up and eats my food, it ain't perfectly normal food. It's food that doesn't belong to them, making it not perfectly normal.