Yes, if I order beef and he gave me horse meat I would consider it a reasonable reaction.
Not only did he mess up my order, but he gave me food that went against my personal beliefs despite me specifically ordering something else. I would have the same sympathy if somebody gave a Hindu beef, when he order lamb or a Muslim Pork, when he order chicken.
Do I have the right to punch the waiter? No! But I have the right to be angry and to let the waiter know. You desire that we should simply seethe in silence is stupid.
yo I'm not fucking talking about whatever the order was or if they're muslim or not. I'm talking about someone who has the moral belief that getting their order wrong is an evil itself. Is that still reasonable? Is anger a reasonable response because the moral belief is so deep? At what point does it become unreasonable to expect things from others? At what point do we get to respond with "cry me a river" when people take issue with things?
Yes, if I order beef and he gave me horse meat I would consider it a reasonable reaction.
Not only did he mess up my order, but he gave me food that went against my personal beliefs despite me specifically ordering something else. I would have the same sympathy if somebody gave a Hindu beef, when he order lamb or a Muslim Pork, when he order chicken.
Do I have the right to punch the waiter? No! But I have the right to be angry and to let the waiter know. You desire that we should simply seethe in silence is stupid.
yo I'm not fucking talking about whatever the order was or if they're muslim or not. I'm talking about someone who has the moral belief that getting their order wrong is an evil itself. Is that still reasonable? Is anger a reasonable response because the moral belief is so deep? At what point does it become unreasonable to expect things from others? At what point do we get to respond with "cry me a river" when people take issue with things?
When the action was a deliberate deception, malicious behavior, gross negligence or willful ignorance then the party doing so has failed in their duty to honor the bargain made with you.
Without a reasonable assurance that certain types of agreements will be upheld either by the parties or by society as a whole then society will collapse, which is a bad thing.
The most basic agreement when you buy meat is that you get the species of meat you paid for.
The actions of these individual sellers and the regulators who could not stop this has undermined confidence in an entire industry, and rightly so if their actions were both deliberate and could have been prevented.
They should be punished and/or systems should be put into place to prevent this from happening in the future because the companies that chose to stick by the social contract for meat have been harmed by their actions and should be protected.
If these were honest mistakes or the cost to correct it was too high then you could say that the vendor met a reasonable duty to honor their responsibility. The reasonableness is something that we then codify into laws, for example if the damage is minor, the chance of it happening is very low and the cost to prevent it would kill the industry it might not be required.
Anger does not have to lead to violence, it can lead to a desire to change the wrong that was done. When anger is a response to real harm then it is justified.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I've messed up at times. I've got regrets because I didn't know enough. And better information was expected from other people.
My feelings about that aren't necessarily all rational, though - even if there was more harm than "eww horse". I suspect that the more harmful feelings are the less rational ones.
But yes, not delivering the paid goods is something to correct. There are stupid ways to complain about things, but I think there's also an odd, general aversion to complaining. Does anything improve without complaining?
Yes, if I order beef and he gave me horse meat I would consider it a reasonable reaction.
Not only did he mess up my order, but he gave me food that went against my personal beliefs despite me specifically ordering something else. I would have the same sympathy if somebody gave a Hindu beef, when he order lamb or a Muslim Pork, when he order chicken.
Do I have the right to punch the waiter? No! But I have the right to be angry and to let the waiter know. You desire that we should simply seethe in silence is stupid.
yo I'm not fucking talking about whatever the order was or if they're muslim or not. I'm talking about someone who has the moral belief that getting their order wrong is an evil itself. Is that still reasonable? Is anger a reasonable response because the moral belief is so deep? At what point does it become unreasonable to expect things from others? At what point do we get to respond with "cry me a river" when people take issue with things?
YES, Hiring somebody to do a job means that you have right to expect them not to make mistakes in the execution of their job. Demanding competence from people you hired is not some outrageous desire, but part and parcel of any job. People failing to provide basic competence even by accident are impacting you, your anger is justified in size in accordance to how negatively it affects you, your beliefs and you personal safety. Accidents happen, but that does not mean that its not still their job to avoid them and you have a right to your grief when their failure affects you.
A Waiter giving you a vanilla shake, when you order chocolate, warrants a "I order Chocolate". A waiter giving you horse meat, when you order Beef, warrants "what the fuck are you trying to pull asshole". In both cases the waiter is the one that fucked up and you are the one that has been wronged. Blame lies with them. You are justified in demanding restitution in both cases. Which can be as little as quickly giving you a chocolate shake or as much as the restaurant being closed by public health and safety.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Yes, if I order beef and he gave me horse meat I would consider it a reasonable reaction.
Not only did he mess up my order, but he gave me food that went against my personal beliefs despite me specifically ordering something else. I would have the same sympathy if somebody gave a Hindu beef, when he order lamb or a Muslim Pork, when he order chicken.
Do I have the right to punch the waiter? No! But I have the right to be angry and to let the waiter know. You desire that we should simply seethe in silence is stupid.
yo I'm not fucking talking about whatever the order was or if they're muslim or not. I'm talking about someone who has the moral belief that getting their order wrong is an evil itself. Is that still reasonable? Is anger a reasonable response because the moral belief is so deep? At what point does it become unreasonable to expect things from others? At what point do we get to respond with "cry me a river" when people take issue with things?
YES, Hiring somebody to do a job means that you have right to expect them not to make mistakes in the execution of their job. Demanding competence from people you hired is not some outrageous desire, but part and parcel of any job. People failing to provide basic competence even by accident are impacting you, your anger is justified in size in accordance to how negatively it affects you, your beliefs and you personal safety. Accidents happen, but that does not mean that its not still their job to avoid them and you have a right to your grief when their failure affects you.
A Waiter giving you a vanilla shake, when you order chocolate, warrants a "I order Chocolate". A waiter giving you horse meat, when you order Beef, warrants "what the fuck are you trying to pull asshole". In both cases the waiter is the one that fucked up and you are the one that has been wronged. Blame lies with them. You are justified in demanding restitution in both cases. Which can be as little as quickly giving you a chocolate shake or as much as the restaurant being closed by public health and safety.
Your anger is not solely justified in size by how the behaviour impacts you, but also by how reasonable the expectation is in the first place. You can't expect people to not make mistakes, you can only expect them to try and not make them. Particularly when the entity you have an expectation of is an incredibly huge bureaucracy tasked with monitoring an even huger network of international trade spanning multiple countries. You have to accept that they might fail, you don't have to be ok with it or encourage it, but you have to accept that they can't be perfect.
If a waiter gives you a vanilla shake and you drink it and a week later you hear that it was chocolate and also there are no real negatives to it other than your personal feeling that drinking vanilla is disgusting (not even a religious motivation) then getting angry and threatening to close the restaurant is unreasonable.
Again, this is not about blame or fault or any of that shit. It's about the reasonableness of your reaction to a violation of whatever your belief is. And that that reaction is not solely dependent on how big you imagine the violation to you is, but also on how big the violation really is and the size of the responsibility you've given to another entity.
I mean, you're free to, again, completely misinterpret what I said but I was really just reacting to the fact that everyone in their effort to counter _J_ was pretty much suggesting that there is no such thing as an overreaction.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I've messed up at times. I've got regrets because I didn't know enough. And better information was expected from other people.
My feelings about that aren't necessarily all rational, though - even if there was more harm than "eww horse". I suspect that the more harmful feelings are the less rational ones.
But yes, not delivering the paid goods is something to correct. There are stupid ways to complain about things, but I think there's also an odd, general aversion to complaining. Does anything improve without complaining?
I don't think even _J_ is against complaining. It's just that "HORSE MEAT? IN MY WHOPPER?? I MIGHT HAVE DIED!!!" could possibly be an overreaction.
This issue needed fixing. Delivering horse meat and saying it is beef is wrong. Fines and re-evaluating control measures are needed so that we can be better assured that what we buy is true. But I need only look at the OP to see overreaction that has nothing to do with the actual scale of this. And this is D&D, there have been bigger overreactions elsewhere.
Posts
yo I'm not fucking talking about whatever the order was or if they're muslim or not. I'm talking about someone who has the moral belief that getting their order wrong is an evil itself. Is that still reasonable? Is anger a reasonable response because the moral belief is so deep? At what point does it become unreasonable to expect things from others? At what point do we get to respond with "cry me a river" when people take issue with things?
When the action was a deliberate deception, malicious behavior, gross negligence or willful ignorance then the party doing so has failed in their duty to honor the bargain made with you.
Without a reasonable assurance that certain types of agreements will be upheld either by the parties or by society as a whole then society will collapse, which is a bad thing.
The most basic agreement when you buy meat is that you get the species of meat you paid for.
The actions of these individual sellers and the regulators who could not stop this has undermined confidence in an entire industry, and rightly so if their actions were both deliberate and could have been prevented.
They should be punished and/or systems should be put into place to prevent this from happening in the future because the companies that chose to stick by the social contract for meat have been harmed by their actions and should be protected.
If these were honest mistakes or the cost to correct it was too high then you could say that the vendor met a reasonable duty to honor their responsibility. The reasonableness is something that we then codify into laws, for example if the damage is minor, the chance of it happening is very low and the cost to prevent it would kill the industry it might not be required.
Anger does not have to lead to violence, it can lead to a desire to change the wrong that was done. When anger is a response to real harm then it is justified.
My feelings about that aren't necessarily all rational, though - even if there was more harm than "eww horse". I suspect that the more harmful feelings are the less rational ones.
But yes, not delivering the paid goods is something to correct. There are stupid ways to complain about things, but I think there's also an odd, general aversion to complaining. Does anything improve without complaining?
YES, Hiring somebody to do a job means that you have right to expect them not to make mistakes in the execution of their job. Demanding competence from people you hired is not some outrageous desire, but part and parcel of any job. People failing to provide basic competence even by accident are impacting you, your anger is justified in size in accordance to how negatively it affects you, your beliefs and you personal safety. Accidents happen, but that does not mean that its not still their job to avoid them and you have a right to your grief when their failure affects you.
A Waiter giving you a vanilla shake, when you order chocolate, warrants a "I order Chocolate". A waiter giving you horse meat, when you order Beef, warrants "what the fuck are you trying to pull asshole". In both cases the waiter is the one that fucked up and you are the one that has been wronged. Blame lies with them. You are justified in demanding restitution in both cases. Which can be as little as quickly giving you a chocolate shake or as much as the restaurant being closed by public health and safety.
Your anger is not solely justified in size by how the behaviour impacts you, but also by how reasonable the expectation is in the first place. You can't expect people to not make mistakes, you can only expect them to try and not make them. Particularly when the entity you have an expectation of is an incredibly huge bureaucracy tasked with monitoring an even huger network of international trade spanning multiple countries. You have to accept that they might fail, you don't have to be ok with it or encourage it, but you have to accept that they can't be perfect.
If a waiter gives you a vanilla shake and you drink it and a week later you hear that it was chocolate and also there are no real negatives to it other than your personal feeling that drinking vanilla is disgusting (not even a religious motivation) then getting angry and threatening to close the restaurant is unreasonable.
Again, this is not about blame or fault or any of that shit. It's about the reasonableness of your reaction to a violation of whatever your belief is. And that that reaction is not solely dependent on how big you imagine the violation to you is, but also on how big the violation really is and the size of the responsibility you've given to another entity.
I mean, you're free to, again, completely misinterpret what I said but I was really just reacting to the fact that everyone in their effort to counter _J_ was pretty much suggesting that there is no such thing as an overreaction.
I don't think even _J_ is against complaining. It's just that "HORSE MEAT? IN MY WHOPPER?? I MIGHT HAVE DIED!!!" could possibly be an overreaction.
This issue needed fixing. Delivering horse meat and saying it is beef is wrong. Fines and re-evaluating control measures are needed so that we can be better assured that what we buy is true. But I need only look at the OP to see overreaction that has nothing to do with the actual scale of this. And this is D&D, there have been bigger overreactions elsewhere.
Particularly in the arguments being made in this thread.
- John Stuart Mill