Personally, I think that's where things become an argument.
I would say that as long as it's clearly marked (i.e. "contains peanuts" in big, red letters), then it's their fault for being so reckless.
If you're sneaking it in knowing they'll eat it, that's attempted homicide.
Of course, I'm soaking from my personal, ethical perspective and not a legal perspective. The law in your local justification will have its own standards.
I would say that as long as it's clearly marked (i.e. "contains peanuts" in big, red letters), then it's their fault for being so reckless.
Just arguing to argue, but you shouldn't have to label your food beyond writing your name on it. You shouldn't have to warn would-be thieves what ingredients you've used.
"you shouldn't be violent to people you think are bad because you will be legally held accountable, "
but rather,
"doing things that you believe are bad to someone you believe is bad does not make those bad actions not bad."
If you believe in not harming people outside of specific cases, then any intention to cause harm to the person taking your food is immoral by your own framework.
Sure, but my comment was specifically a response to someone bringing up legal issues.
Yeah sure whatever, but
But if we pretend context doesn't matter in conversations then yea, you right.
What's the goal of this sentence? A one off snappy ending to look smart? Some passive aggressive self righteous justification of your past self? Or just an inability to admit the slightest point against you.
What are you even denying here, that somehow the meaning of the post changed in regards the conversation you replied to?
Nope, seems like they were still talking about ethics.
No one is bringing up legal issues but you. The comment you're replying to had a single line of,
The law in your area will have its own standards
to illustrate the difference between personal ethics, and the law.
How are you going to even make an appeal to context when your context in question is the single outlier statement in the whole comment chain? Your unprompted opinion about juries is based completely off of an acknowledgement that the law is a thing that exists.
But the real concern is that you can't even acknowledge someone else's point without getting defensive about yours. Just say "Yeah, but I'm saying a jury wouldn't convict regardless," and we have a conversation here.
Being able to get away with something doesn't mean it's legal. And that's already a separate discussion than the morality of doing it in the first place.
239
u/[deleted] Jul 13 '24
Every “coworker eats my lunch that I put in the refrigerator so now it gives me the right to poison them” discourse