7 ms·
Well, to me it seems plausible that the writer is not telling the whole truth. They noticed food being stolen from the fridge and he purposely put extremely hot
by sh4z 8y ago
Well, to me it seems plausible that the writer is not telling the whole truth. They noticed food being stolen from the fridge and he purposely put extremely hot spice in the food to harm the perpetrator.
But how do you prove that. And even if you prove it, would it hold in court since the food was stolen?
- welly 8y agoWhy are you inventing scenarios in this story that you could never possibly prove to exist?
- sh4z 8y agoBecause I don't believe the story, and the ending certainly seems to good to be true, which usually means it is.
- nucleardog 8y agoThe writer continued to bring equally spice food and consume it. They let someone else taste it to confirm it was exceptionally spicy, then ate it in front of them without issue. Unless their plan for revenge started years back when they started slowly building up their tolerance and taste for spicy food, I really don't see how that's even close to the most plausible explanation.
- btrettel 8y agoOnce I had some roommates who would steal my food from the refrigerator. Several years after I moved out a friend recommended making cat food lasagna as revenge as it wouldn't harm the perps, just be somewhat gross. (Note that I don't recommend this. I am just saying that if catching the perps with food is a goal then there are better options.)
- icebraining 8y agoWhat would be the goal of the writer for even sending this to Ask A Manager with false events? And more importantly: does it matter? If you come down to it, we don't even know if the writer exists at all. It's just an hypothetical event that serves as fodder for discussion.
- jessaustin 8y agoMost fake things on the internet exist to drive traffic.
- seattle_spring 8y ago> They noticed food being stolen from the fridge and he purposely put extremely hot spice in the food for the purpose of getting back at the perpetrator. Even if that were the case (which I doubt), why is that wrong? On what planet is it OK to defend the actions of the thief?
- sh4z 8y agoIs it not always wrong to cause someone harm? edit: If he would have poisoned the food and the thief died, would that be ok? I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if he did purposely contaminate the food in order to get back at the thief, instead of just talking to him about it, the talk with HR seems justified.
- __jal 8y agoNo, it is not always wrong to cause someone harm. But more directly relevant, does the thief have no agency?
- DoofusOfDeath 8y agoWe won't all agree on ethical system and world views, but a useful thought experiment is whether or not you'd be willing to shoot Hitler at any point in history.
- sxates 8y agoIt's often considered justified in self-defense.
- dchapp 8y agoMaybe it is "always wrong" given a particularly rigid and simplistic code of ethics, but in American society at least we are very comfortable with the notion of causing deserved harm (whether physical, financial, or merely emotional) to wrongdoers as a deterrent to others.
- syshum 8y agoI hope you do not actaully think that is way things are or the law works because it does not. In the US the law allows for you to make the case of self defense, it is a defense for violations of the law. I.E. it is always illegal to kill someone, but it is a defense if you kill someone who was trying to kill you.. Things like bobby traps, or poisoning your food against a thief would not be legal under American law. For example I can not setup a series of Automated Gun Turrents in my home to kill anyone that breaks in, but I could (in some states) shoot someone myself if they break in. In a food theft case as an individual could in fact assault someone possibly even commit battery against someone in order to prevent the from stealing my lunch but I could not say put bobby trap that could cause physical harm to them on the lunch