[sh4z]

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?

[seattle_spring]

> 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]

Is 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.

[pjc50]

It wasn't contaminated, merely spiced; assuming the story about him eating some himself to demonstrate that it was his normal (hot) level of spice. The idiot here is someone eating something that is obviously far too spicy for them - which is not going to be a secret, something obvious from the first bite.

[mitchty]

> Is it not always wrong to cause someone harm?

No, self defense is one reason.

And as someone that also loves super spicy foods to the point that I eat whole peppers raw, anyone that is brave enough to eat my food is welcome to try.

If your body can't take the heat, you shouldn't be eating my food.

This is no different than if a celiac food thief started eating someone elses food that contained gluten. Its not up to the person that brought food to make sure their food never contained things allergic to everyone in the office. The thief should keep their mitts off something they don't know might hurt them.

This person sounds like they had an allegic reaction to capsacin. They also hopefully learnt that stealing food might mean they'll trip up their reaction. And in the end, they learnt that filing complaints with the HR person you're sleeping with might end up with both of you being fired.

[dchapp]

Maybe 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]

I 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

[dchapp]

I certainly understand that it's not legal to turn your house, nor your lunch, into a deathtrap. Nor at any point did I claim that any particular kind of action was legal. I said that Americans generally feel that we're collectively justified in harming certain kinds of people. That's not a claim about legality. That's a claim about how a subset of the population feels.

My use of "we" was merely meant to indicate that our society, through the apparatus of our legislators, has decided that our society is justified in doing harm to certain classes of people and has set up mechanisms for doing this. I was not using "we" in the "me and my immediate peers" sense.

[mattnewport]

It's not always wrong to cause someone else harm, either legally or ethically. The principle of legal self defense using reasonable force is well established in many legal systems and is considered ethical in many ethical philosophies for example. Where the line of "reasonable" lies is often a subject of debate however.

[__jal]

No, it is not always wrong to cause someone harm.

But more directly relevant, does the thief have no agency?

[DoofusOfDeath]

We 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]

It's often considered justified in self-defense.

[tom_]

But he didn't poison the food.

[welly]

Why are you inventing scenarios in this story that you could never possibly prove to exist?

[sh4z]

Because I don't believe the story, and the ending certainly seems to good to be true, which usually means it is.

[nucleardog]

The 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]

Once 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]

What 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]

Most fake things on the internet exist to drive traffic.