Why do you assume he means it in the worst possible interpretation of the phrase, rather than him saying folk with serious allergies are taking a great risk by consuming food they didn’t prepare themselves?
Gee I don't know when I assumed anything, but you assumed I did. I didn't. I asked a question and you assumed I assumed "the worst possible interpretation." I don't know why you assumed that, or why you assumed anything one way or the other but perhaps your assumption (not mine you attributed to me), has something to do with this next quoted part.... I'm not sure, I didn't make any assumptions. I asked some questions because I thought I might not have understood what he said. I didn't assume "the worst possible interpretation" of what he said and that is entirely unsupported. I thought he might have said something and I asked what he said because I didn't get it.
While you're putting words in my mouth, is there some good food to put in it too? Since you're back there? Something tasty? I'll assume you agree with me entirely since we're now assuming. No need to respond or question, because if you question, which is all I did, you might me assumed to have assumed "the worst possible interpretation" of what I said....
Point made.... Perhaps consider not making such assumptions. Either way....
... Dude. Did you actually just say people who have severe food allergies should never eat any food they didn't see personally prepared?
There are several things I don't eat, including meat. You don't know how many times I've been accidentally served the wrong food, by very respectable restaurants which were not negligent, took my concerns seriously, and were very apologetic about the mistake. Mistakes are incredibly easy to make all the time. If you're someone burdened with the unfortunate reality that you could die if someone makes an extremely minor, unpreventable mistake of the kind that absolutely will happen sooner or later, then it would strike me as insane if you did not take extremely serious precautions against it. We live in a world where not everyone can safely have certain experiences and we have to accept that.
This doesn't mean that restaurants should be cavalier about everything, it just means that, when other people have behaved reasonably, every individual has to choose what level of risk he will accept, and make peace with that.
So as a combination, you should gauge how much you trust the provider and the food type together. If you are deathly allergic to milk, you can probably still trust a raw orange, even if you don't know who picked it. It's not like they would inject some milk into it just for fun. But you would only trust a hamburger prepared by a family member or a friend (or yourself).
Do people put milk in hamburgers? But apart from the specific example seeming weird, yeah, that's it exactly. It's as simple as that.
We don't have to accept anything like that at all. Neither one of us can force anything, so no we don't "have to." I don't want people dying or getting sick. That's not unreasonable, especially when they don't have to.
We live in a society. That society can and should impose a duty on food service to take every step to prevent somebody dying or just even getting sick and prove they did things right. That's a good thing. If the food service whatever can't meet widespread standards, then they can be shut down to make room for somebody else who can. They do not deserve to exist as a business, period. There have been way too many examples of food service places not caring and making people sick/failing to meet health codes. There's a reason health departments do inspections, and people don't want food poisoning, (People really don't want it if it kills them but even if it just makes them sick that sucks), because cleaning the place costs money and effort the owner doesn't feel like investing. Same for being careful with how they do things the way they should. Even recalls on food products are there because things need to be done right. Same goes for a long history with food processing plants. If there is no enforcement, then things won't be done right. It just has happened way too much to be anything else.
This is preventable not unpreventable. There is an obligation to prevent it. That obligation is pretty standard in food service. The mistake is major. It is a person dying, which I think is not getting nearly enough weight here. No a person is not "insane" or at fault in any way if they took reasonable steps to avoid being served something they didn't order, especially if it sickens or kills them. Anyone who starts any food business knows allergies are a thing they have to watch out for and if that person pretends they aren't or just doesn't care, then they are asking for trouble for their business. Also, it's reasonable not to want people hurt, sickened or killed.
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14972139 times)