Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

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....

You did basically the same thing to Max as you did here. One might suggest posting several paragraphs of shrill, pearl-clutching nonsense would not happen when the most extreme interpretation of a statement isn’t made.

You assumed when Max said “should not” he meant “people with allergies should be prevented from eating food they don’t prepare themselves” rather than “people with allergies should not take the risk of eating contaminated food because the consequences could literally be fatal”.

... 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.

Perhaps you should read what Max posted.

[dragdeler]

No these are not unreasonable expectations, but again, I can not put myself in the mindset of gambling my life on some random foodworker. I have accepted that their actions are upstream from mine, so allways have my order ready, say please and thank you etc. Anything to avoid aggravating them. But also no eyecontact and very rarely and briefly if ever smiles... so naturally my confidence in getting a sandwich without mayonaise if I asked for it, is extremly low... But I am taking the wrong turn.

I will admit freely that at first it seemed obvious that disney is the primary target for hate, and there remains some of that (you don't point towards private arbitration if you're not implicated in some litigation that is f'd up)... But the moment I learned the profession of the victim my empathy waned. For personal reasons too, I'm a bitter asshole of course. But like really, between whoever's in the kitchen that day (might be their first day, how the hell could you exclude that "wOn'T hApPeN tO mE" yaah..) and the literal person who studied medicine, and walks around deadly allergic, presumably without an epipen... I mean...


edit: in my world view there is people who will poison you if you tell them you're allergic, it's beyond unhinged, but I can picture exactly the type like a giant laminated sheet of paper of all the services they don't deliver as a giant FU for welcome (we only accept this payment type, no takeouts (relevant for taxes in germany), no free water or toilets, no modification to orders from the menu or whatever part of their job they don't like) taking it upon them to judge if a person is actually allergic

I doubt that happened at disney springs tho.

[Maximum Spin]

Maybe this analogy will help.

Suppose you have developed a rare and highly improbable condition that somehow forces you to commute only by motorcycle at all times.
This is very unfortunate. It isn't your fault. I hope that everyone will obey all traffic laws and drive responsibly.
If someone runs a red light and hits you, that person is at fault and should be dealt with accordingly.
Nevertheless, wear a helmet.

We live in a world where people make mistakes sometimes, and sometimes bad things even happen when nobody is to blame. On the subject of a traffic analogy, not too long ago a friend of mine was involved in a minor fender bender - another driver came out of her blind spot when she was changing lanes. Nobody was really to blame for this - the other driver apparently had just missed her signal (meaning, couldn't see it, not ignored it), and I know my friend's driving habits well enough (and the police agreed) to believe that she did everything right. If the other car had been a Pinto and had exploded dramatically, that would have really been regrettable, but it still wouldn't be my friend's fault.

This is a great example:

But like really, between whoever's in the kitchen that day (might be their first day, how the hell could you exclude that "wOn'T hApPeN tO mE" yaah..)

Anything could happen. Your waiter could have a stroke and accidentally put a plate down on the wrong table. Life is like that.

[Robot Parade Leader]

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....

You did basically the same thing to Max as you did here. One might suggest posting several paragraphs of shrill, pearl-clutching nonsense would not happen when the most extreme interpretation of a statement isn’t made.

You assumed when Max said “should not” he meant “people with allergies should be prevented from eating food they don’t prepare themselves” rather than “people with allergies should not take the risk of eating contaminated food because the consequences could literally be fatal”.

... 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.

Perhaps you should read what Max posted.

I did read it. I disagreed with it. Would you like to tell me what else I think, since you seem to know what I think and I don't?

Better yet, perhaps you should quit telling people what they think?

Even better, why don't I not read your next post, because it will just tell me what I think?

[Maximum Spin]

I did read it. I disagreed with it. Would you like to tell me what else I think, since you seem to know what I think and I don't?

Better yet, perhaps you should quit telling people what they think?

Even better, why don't I not read your next post, because it will just tell me what I think?

The thing is that what you said I said isn't what I said.

[Robot Parade Leader]

I did read it. I disagreed with it. Would you like to tell me what else I think, since you seem to know what I think and I don't?

Better yet, perhaps you should quit telling people what they think?

Even better, why don't I not read your next post, because it will just tell me what I think?

The thing is that what you said I said isn't what I said.

It literally quoted you. After asking for clarification. It is exactly what you said. Yes it is. Deny it more. Go ahead. Feel free.

You called people with allergies "Insane," and blamed them if they die from someone feeding them something they're allergic to and called it unpreventable. Yes, you did. Go ahead and lie and say you didn't. Feel free. You can't understand how someone could be upset if they are related to such a person? We're "insane...." Ok... .whatever.

I'm out. You're talking to yourself from this point on.

[hector13]

argle bargle ruff ruff ruff

[femmelf]

Man, there's no point in engaging with them. You are being baited. Don't fall for it…
It's just not worth it. You are not going to change minds.

Qft, and also the irony.

You can lead a horse to water, you can’t make them comprehend the written word after repeated clarifications.

Quit baiting people. How about we just get back to what the thread was and move on from a topic I'm somehow regretting I even posted.

[dragdeler]

I am taking crazy pills.

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.

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.

These are both 99% reasonable except for nitpicks? Like "every individual has to choose what level of risk he will accept, and make peace with that" is pretty ludicrous hysterical uhmm radical, when talking about a restaurant, but also a reality.

And right to exist for a business that endangers it's customers is very questionable, and I'm with you there but seems to we organise through the question of wether or not they are profitable. How exactly does one force them out of busines??

Why the hell does the husband have to go through civil court in the first place? I mean if somebody dies the food inspectors should automatically be mandated to kick down the doors the same day?

We live in a society yes, but in the end it's all lip service.

[hector13]

Man, there's no point in engaging with them. You are being baited. Don't fall for it…
It's just not worth it. You are not going to change minds.

Qft, and also the irony.

You can lead a horse to water, you can’t make them comprehend the written word after repeated clarifications.

Quit baiting people. How about we just get back to what the thread was and move on from a topic I'm somehow regretting I even posted.

Alright, I’ll edit my posts out if you do the same seeing as you’ve quoted them.

[Maximum Spin]

It literally quoted you. After asking for clarification. It is exactly what you said. Yes it is. Deny it more. Go ahead. Feel free.

You called people with allergies "Insane," and blamed them if they die from someone feeding them something they're allergic to and called it unpreventable. Yes, you did. Go ahead and lie and say you didn't. Feel free. You can't understand how someone could be upset if they are related to such a person? We're "insane...." Ok... .whatever.

I'm out. You're talking to yourself from this point on.

I really just don't get it.

You know, I really hate to discuss personal information. But in this case, I feel like it's worth it. It turns out, you know, I also have a relative with food allergies... and she prefers to prepare her food at home and doesn't eat out at restaurants except for a couple whose staff she particularly knows and trusts. This is probably more cautious than she needs to be most of the time, but she has her level of risk that she's comfortable with. That's really all it comes down to.

And, well, frankly, no, if the locally owned restaurant she likes somehow screwed up and gave her the wrong meal, I don't think any of us would sue. They'd be horrified, they'd probably hold a benefit for the family immediately. Why would I destroy a community pillar over something like that? The idea is actually grotesque to me.

[McTraveller]

It is technically unpreventable in the sense that risk cannot be statistically reduced to zero. There's no amount of money, training, or technology that society could spend to get it to 0% risk, and we probably shouldn't expect 0% as a society, and it's already pretty damned low*.  An individual can reduce their personal risk even lower than what is already a really low general risk in the first place by carrying epipens with them.

If you want something easy that society can do to reduce risk, it's to get rid of the systemic issues that vastly increased the price of such treatments to cause people less likely to carry them around. Sadly you can't even legally carry an epipen without a prescription, so you'd have to change laws for places like restaurants to just have them on hand, like they can have AEDs.

Those are better options, I think, than either just saying "oh it's easy for companies to ensure their employees never make mistakes, so of course we should sue them out of oblivion if they screw up because it's clearly irresponsible behavior" or just letting it all be on the person who has the allergy.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)

A cursory search shows that the US has on the order of 100 food-allergy deaths per year in restaurants etc, out of a population of about 15 million people with allergies.  This is really low compared to the risks most people take every day; compare to automobiles which have 40000 deaths per year for 300M people.  That's a rate of 7500 people per death for driving versus 150000 people per death for food allergies - a good 20 times more risky to get in a car than it is to eat in a restaurant if you have an allergy.  And given that car crashes and food allergy deaths are not really random, but are all special cause, this rough comparison is probably valid at least on an order-of-magnitude basis.

I think we are doing pretty good as a society here, and this is only a story because it involves a giant multinational.  Suing because it's a giant corp and not a mom & pop is the definition of arbitrary and capricious, merely because of the deep pockets. And I'd be surprised if the probability of adverse event is any different in the "deep pocket" venues compared to the mom & pop ones - and if it is different, it's probably more risky to eat in the smaller places.

Short version: society is really bad at understanding and evaluating risk.

[Maximum Spin]

Sadly you can't even legally carry an epipen without a prescription, so you'd have to change laws for places like restaurants to just have them on hand, like they can have AEDs.

I'm fine with this law being changed but the specific societal solution seems terrible. "Hi yes let us inject you with this syringe we keep around for emergencies", no way that's going to go badly.

[dragdeler]

Well in case of emergency break glass.


Also I get to hate on druglaws uwu? This story is truely the neverending well of 21st ragebait centric journalism isn't it?

[anewaname]

What, I do believe more that -> I don't have any influence over what you quote -> than that you'd actually want to quote that.

So I stuck to my fatalism that I elaborated in said quote. At least it's convolutely principled even if it's hard to assign it any more positive traits.


edit: if you actually care to know... it takes about a night of sleep for me to start not appreciating my former thoughts... but that's like a me problem, y'know?!

My reason for wanting to quote it is that it is a truth that has multiple applications, at least in my perception of it, and it reminds me of people I have known who have trusted others for the wrong reason and been burned by it. Those people failed to do risk assessment, and they trusted groups not individuals, and they got scammed, etc. "Fat turkeys taunting the world to slaughter them." And, I saw the potential in each case and gave clear words of caution, but it was not enough to sway them to question their certitudes or to consider the weight of the potential results. There are people who just don't understand that social structures inevitably become hunting grounds.

Was there an affirmation or denial in there?