[michaelmrose]

There simply isn't a case in which you need to eat there unless the nuclear missiles are on their way and you happen to be out front and want a bite to eat before the end.

You have identified an aspect of the person with yourself and even though you yourself presumably don't walk acting like a jerk feel like you need to justify their misbehavior as if you were defending yourself. You don't need to keep defending them.

[_jcyi]

You're arguing against a straw man. I've actually been to events without food options that accommodated my diet, and I've been served meals on planes that included buns and sweets which ended up in the trash. No nukes involved.

If that makes some strangers on the Internet think I'm a "jerk", so be it.

[Dylan16807]

If it's accidentally becoming a strawman, it's only by virtue of trying to tie it back to the original post. People didn't realize your goalposts were a mile away from those goalposts.

If you're given a single serving without asking, then you have almost no resemblance to the people being criticized here.

Your earlier post said you "wouldn't feel even slightly guilty" about wasting food in a way that implied you would act similarly to the people being criticized here, taking a whole bunch of pieces. If you do that, you should feel guilty. If you weren't trying to imply a similarity, you communicated your point badly.

[_jcyi]

All I suggested was that they were very quick to demand that people be forcibly ejected based on insufficient information.

I'd rather see the restaurant try to solve a problem than arbitrarily punish people, especially when "people" might include myself under the wrong circumstances. But I guess no one likes to hear nuance.

[Dylan16807]

> But I guess no one likes to hear nuance.

If you were trying to suggest nuance, you didn't do a great job of it.

"in that situation I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about it" is jumping to the opposite extreme.

> All I suggested

You definitely suggested more than that.

[_jcyi]

You definitely suggested more than that.

Then you're reading something I didn't say.

If you do that, you should feel guilty.

Guilty of what? It's a business, not a charity. If that's where I happen to be stuck having dinner, and if they're unwilling to accommodate my preferences even at additional cost, I'm not going to go hungry or cheat on my diet purely out of politeness.

They can either solve the problem and increase their revenue, or accept that they've created an edge case situation where some food will be wasted. Punishing their customers would accomplish nothing except loss of business and negative Yelp reviews.

[Dylan16807]

> I'm not going to go hungry or cheat on my diet purely out of politeness.

It's not politeness.

If we distill "all you can eat" down to the basics, you take a small amount, you eat it, only then do you get more.

It's generally fine to reorder those actions, such as by getting more food upfront, but the outcome needs to be the same as the basic version. That's the business deal being made. If you make a deal with the intent to break it, you should feel guilty, outside of exceptional circumstances.

If they're not willing to serve something acceptable to you, that's bad of them, but it doesn't mean you get to break the rules. Even if you "had" to be there for some external reason.

Also ejecting someone, or cutting off their supply, is probably nicer than charging them for eight pounds of extra food.

And again, this only applies to all you can eat situations. Not other restaurants, not plane meals.

[imtringued]

You do realize that the quantity of food you're throwing out matters, right? How many pounds of food did you throw away during those events?

You're a jerk, because you're trying to defend someone who probably behaves worse than you, by equating yourself with that person.

[_jcyi]

Okay, well then you're a jerk, because you're insulting me for a silly reason. I'm not defending bad behavior. I'm suggesting that we give people the benefit of the doubt rather than assassinate their character based on assumptions.

If they had permission and were okay with spending all that extra money on leftovers, it's between them and the restaurant. I don't like wasting food on principle, but now we're getting into fuzzy issues around the relationship between supply and demand. At the end of the day, if someone wants to spend their money on food and throw it in the garbage/compost, that's essentially their business.

I'd have more of a problem with it if it were meat, because there's no reasoning around the fact that an animal was killed for it. Rice is in more abundant supply with with less severe negative externalities to its production. We also don't know how much rice it was; "eight pounds" was an eyeball guesstimate that could be completely wrong or exaggerated for narrative effect.

[Dylan16807]

The way you've been wording things is less "benefit of the doubt" and more like there isn't doubt.

And it's not character assassination when it's such a vague anonymous anecdote.

Your wording strongly suggests that you took it personally and were defending yourself and them together. If that's not what happened you need to work on how you phrase these things.

[_jcyi]

I don't see that my wording suggests any of what you interpreted. I left a terse comment that should have been fairly uncontroversial, and others read meaning between the lines that wasn't there.

The top response at the time I commented implied that the individuals in question were "deliberate food wasters" and "despicable".

[Dylan16807]

> I left a terse comment that should have been fairly uncontroversial

The reaction is mostly to your second comment, not the first one.

> The top response at the time I commented implied that the individuals in question were "deliberate food wasters" and "despicable".

Okay? It's still a vague anonymous anecdote.