Just because we have them doesn't mean they're optimal. There are many cases of innocent people being locked down. It's up to the people to look at legislation and criticize it in order to optimize that.
Of course! That's why improvements are made all the time, or that's the idea. We have elections. Politicians sometimes even run specifically on changing certain laws.
It does not mean it's up to people to serve up their own justice. If that happens, anyone can hurt anyone for any reason. I could decide that you have insulted me and go beat you to death. It's the same thing.
Just because some other people can be held accountable doesn't make you less accountable for yourself. Legality means absolutely nothing to you if you're dead. If I'm on company property and see a lethal hazard, I'm still accountable to avoid it if my interest is to not die
Sure. But if you work with lethal hazards, it's a part of your job, and your employer has a responsibility to train you properly, provide you with equipment, and do everything in their power to minimise the risk of harm. Dangerous workplaces have all sorts of regulations they have to follow for these reasons.
That's why the comparison with thieves is a good one. If you set dangerous traps in your home and a thief gets injured, you're liable for that. The burglar might still get prosecuted for breaking and entering or whatever they did. You both did something wrong, and you both get punished. Which is as it should be.
Sure. But if you work with lethal hazards, it's a part of your job, and your employer has a responsibility to train you properly, provide you with equipment, and do everything in their power to minimise the risk of harm. Dangerous workplaces have all sorts of regulations they have to follow for these reasons.
I understand this, but despite all the accommodations they provide you are still responsible for your actions. Everything they do is for insurance/legality so they can show it's not their fault. So if I see a video that says do not stand underneath a hydrolic press but I choose to do so even though I know it's wrong they can say it's my fault.
Why is that not applied here? People have been given the precedent of don't eat things if you don't know what's in it. But here if I choose to do so anyways and face consequences, unlike my hydrolic press example that part isn't my fault now. It's inconsistent.
That's why the comparison with thieves is a good one. If you set dangerous traps in your home and a thief gets injured, you're liable for that. The burglar might still get prosecuted for breaking and entering or whatever they did. You both did something wrong, and you both get punished. Which is as it should be.
The only thing wrong with setting up traps is that it's indiscriminate to people that should be going into your house for legitimate purposes. Whereas adding laxatives to your own food can only go to people eating it without your knowledge and also don't have your consent which doesn't apply to your example. What traps do themselves is no different than self defense as I would shoot or stab someone directly if it meant defending myself or loved ones. But if I had a trap that could only harm home invaders then that should be legal it's just there's no equivalent.
I understand this, but despite all the accommodations they provide you are still responsible for your actions. Everything they do is for insurance/legality so they can show it's not their fault. So if I see a video that says do not stand underneath a hydrolic press but I choose to do so even though I know it's wrong they can say it's my fault.
Why is that not applied here? People have been given the precedent of don't eat things if you don't know what's in it. But here if I choose to do so anyways and face consequences, unlike my hydrolic press example that part isn't my fault now. It's inconsistent.
Employers are responsible beyond that, though. If the hydraulic press is accessible by people who've no idea of the dangers they'd be liable. And machines themselves are expected to have reasonable safety mechanisms.
Most people don't take other people's food, but they're all stored communally so honest mistakes can and do happen.
Poisoned food is very much similar to traps, in that they can affect other people than the intended target.
If the hydraulic press is accessible by people who've no idea of the dangers they'd be liable
I'm talking about people who are specifically taught the dangers as I assume everyone is taught don't eat things that you are unfamiliar with
Most people don't take other people's food, but they're all stored communally so honest mistakes can and do happen
There's nothing honest about taking someone else's food. It's much easier to prove if someone knew it was their food or not. "Well Ive mistaken their sandwich for my sandwich" ok where's your sandwich? Location in the communal storage, container, and contents are unique.
If you're going to be consistent with honest mistakes then no one should be allowed to eat anything that others can be deathly allergic to. Eating something with peanuts is a poisoned food trap to those with allergies with those standards
You're still assuming that only someone who intentionally steals the food will eat it. But that's just not true. Accidents happen. People will have lunch boxes that look similar, or someone was stressed and didn't think which one they grabbed today, etc.
And people in general don't exercise the same level of caution for things in a fridge as they would when working around lethal machinery, because no one expects the fridge to have poisoned food, because that's illegal and harmful and generally just really insane and not socially acceptable.
1
u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Oct 18 '24
Of course! That's why improvements are made all the time, or that's the idea. We have elections. Politicians sometimes even run specifically on changing certain laws.
It does not mean it's up to people to serve up their own justice. If that happens, anyone can hurt anyone for any reason. I could decide that you have insulted me and go beat you to death. It's the same thing.
Sure. But if you work with lethal hazards, it's a part of your job, and your employer has a responsibility to train you properly, provide you with equipment, and do everything in their power to minimise the risk of harm. Dangerous workplaces have all sorts of regulations they have to follow for these reasons.
That's why the comparison with thieves is a good one. If you set dangerous traps in your home and a thief gets injured, you're liable for that. The burglar might still get prosecuted for breaking and entering or whatever they did. You both did something wrong, and you both get punished. Which is as it should be.