RL Anger

[Insomnia]

And then again, some people are just assholes; my mother was allergic to scallops and seafood is kinda the thing around here. So she would ask if the fries were done in the same fryer as the scallops - fair enough. But then it turned into all shellfish. Then it turned into fish. The it turned into my mother forbidding anyone from eating fries around her that had been done in the same fryer as fish because we would be in a car for a while together.

Never stopped her from smoking in the car or house with my grandparents after they had both had heart attacks though.

The greater dickwad theory has changed to just "It's okay to be a diick now." People aren't constrained by the anonymity of the internet anymore; just look at all the news stories of people going up to other people because they are offended by how fat they are, other shaming a mother breastfeeding, or leaving nasty notes on cars because someone had a handicap anything and they dared to walk away from the car. (I've had someone come up to me and comment on it. Despite the fact that I didn't park anywhere near a handicap spot because I'm not handicapped while I was using my father's car which has a thing for a rearview mirror. Surprisingly they didn't want to give me their name, after demanding mine so they could go to the police.)

And dad wants me to get out more and meet people. No way! People are too much dicks nowadays. I'll stay in my basement with my pretendyfuntimes, thank you very much.

If I weren't so addicted to the internet, I would go get a cabin in the middle of nowhere and become a crazy cat woman.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Thenomain said in RL Anger:

I assume (bad on me, I know) that the whole "this stuff is made in a place that does peanuts" is a law and/or regulation. I know like hell that "if someone asks for the detailed breakdown of your food you have to give it to them" is.

@Ganymede knows more then I do but a lot of the what needs to go on food packing regulations are FDA rules not actual laws. Though in common practice they can be close to the same result they are not actually the same.

[ThatOneDude]

@Ganymede said in RL Anger:

@ThatOneDude said in RL Anger:

Would it have been the "one" thing that now banned that dog from the store based on this perceived unspoken rule?

I regularly go out to eat. I'm allergic to legumes, nuts, and some other things that will kill me if ingested. Is it reasonable for me to demand that all such products are removed from the store and my presence? Is it reasonable for me to demand that all such products are removed from grocery stores at which I frequent?

Going out in public logically requires a person to be prepared to deal with their allergies, if they have them. If I were management, I would tell that one customer to deal with it. Having a dog-friendly store is likely more important to business than the one customer that has a complaint about that policy.

What gives someone the right to have a dog that isn't a service dog with them everywhere?

Nothing.

What of the people with allergies ... They don't matter?

No more than any other customer, I presume.

I'm more curious about this unspoken rule part because I'm sure if the dog did something like bit a child there would most likely be no mention of said rule from the store right?

I guess not? That sounds like an issue between management and their CG / Premises Liability insurance carrier and/or agent.

This is a joke right? This argument in response to the question?

You go out to eat, hence you expect... No you know there will be FOOD there.

So by virtue of most the responses, more so with the food allergy example this means the lady in the store should avoid the grocery store? One that has an unspoken rule to allow dogs? Unspoken or one that "tolerates" dogs. But that doesn't make this fact known through posted policy... Maybe the lady will now never return to that store but does it really make her wrong?

My point with the dog and the store is how is this lady any more wrong for assuming the dog shouldn't be there vs the owner assuming the dog should be there? If you were to ask any logical person ANYWHERE if there are dogs in grocery stores the answer would 95% of the time be "No there are not."

I'm deathly allergic to cats and guess what, I don't go places there are cats. If a cat were in the grocery store I might not say something like that lady did but I don't see how if I did how it would make me "wrong"?

Would you still say I'm wrong if there were laws against animals in grocery stores in my state?

[ThatGuyThere]

I'm deathly allergic to cats and guess what, I don't go places there are cats. If a cat were in the grocery store I might not say something like that lady did but I don't see how if I did how it would make me "wrong"?

Would you still say I'm wrong if there were laws against animals in grocery stores in my state?

Yes it would. Unless you are a member of law enforcement it is not your job to enforce laws.
If the lady "allergic" to dog had went to talk to the store manager I have no problem with that. Hell if she had asked Cupcake and dog to move to a different part of the store so she could grab some items near them again no problem with that, trying to guilt someone else into not bringing a dog in where the store allows it makes that person a dick.

[Ganymede]

@ThatOneDude said in RL Anger:

This is a joke right? This argument in response to the question?

Not really. Blind people don't always see analogies.

My point isn't about expectations; my point is that exceptions don't make the rules. Further, if you have deadly allergies, you'd better be prepared for them; that's why I carry an epipen. The last part: again, an exception.

The store made a conscious choice to allow animals in there. They implicitly accept the consequences of the miniscule fraction of the population that will have a problem with it, as well as any legal penalties that may be enforced against them.

---

@ThatGuyThere said in RL Anger:

... I do but a lot of the what needs to go on food packing regulations are FDA rules not actual laws. Though in common practice they can be close to the same result they are not actually the same.

If it's not an FDA regulation -- and I don't think it is -- it's good practice to raise assumption-of-the-risk defenses to product liability.

[ThatGuyThere]

Out of curiosity I did some research and found on http://www.qorpak.com/pages/packaging-regulations-united-states

Allergen labeling has also been a requirement since 2006. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Act not only requires disclosure if the product contains potential allergens like milk, fish, eggs, shellfish, peanuts, wheat or soybeans, but a notification if the product was made or packaged in a facility using any of the aforementioned allergens.

So there we go on the allergens issue. the FDA site seems to agree but is horribly designed so I might have missed something on it.

[surreality]

@Thenomain said in RL Anger:

Just as taking your smoking outside or somewhere else shouldn't be a big deal.

It isn't, until the law states you can't be within 100ft of any public structure.

As in, 'stick it out in the rain, the law states that makeshift lean-to/ez-ups tent/table with a fucking umbrella on it is a public structure'. Yes, really; if someone stood still too long holding an umbrella I'm reasonably certain they'd be dubbed a 'public structure' for purposes of this idiocy. As in, businesses have tried to just put up crappy little sideless tents for their employees out in the parking lot or on their property away from the buildings at the designated distance to keep the weather off the poor bastards, and they get heavily, heavily fined for it. Forget any little 'here's a tiny smoker's shack for the dead of winter that has zero other purpose or reason for anyone to be there', no matter how sane that is.

There's 'reasonable', and then there's 'it's fashionable to be as punitive and dickish and harsh as humanly possible'; my state definitely went the latter route. Some states (at least as of a while ago) still allowed for places to have a section if they installed a (very costly) completely separate area with its own ventilation (or completely separated building with its own ventilation that didn't cross. As overbearing as that is, there are businesses for which that would or could be a worthwhile investment. (Hotels, I'm looking at you; this is better than floor-by-floor or hall-by-hall, which sometimes changes and renders the whole thing moot.) Nope, that was just too reasonable for this state. grumble-mutter

Chalk it up to one more reason to work from home. I dunno if I could handle having to befriend a mass of SUV-having fellow-employee smokers to camp out in the parking lot with when it snows. (Which is now what happens kinda a lot, and is less than ideal for so, so many reasons.)

[ThatOneDude]

@ThatGuyThere As far as the issue I could care less I'm more interested in the responses I read after the post.

So smoking in a non-smoking area shouldn't be an issue and the person asking / telling the smoker about this fact is "wrong".

The person "in the right" by law and by normal expectation "is wrong" for pointing out and alerting someone that is most likely in the wrong of that fact.

Interesting. But it makes much about this community make WAY more sense

[Misadventure]

Exactly. Except there was no no smoking area.

[ThatOneDude]

@Misadventure Riiiight

[surreality]

Smoking's kinda a bad analogy for this, since most places in the US now are default no-smoking areas by law, and this is broadly known and still clearly posted everywhere anyway.

Unless my sick-slow brain is not grokking 'law states most places in the US are default no-dog areas' in the same fashion, but not being a dog owner, I have no idea if that's actually true or not.

[ThatGuyThere]

@ThatOneDude said in RL Anger:

@ThatGuyThere As far as the issue I could care less I'm more interested in the responses I read after the post.

So smoking in a non-smoking area shouldn't be an issue and the person asking / telling the smoker about this fact is "wrong".
Yes unless that person is somehow authorized to do that either by owning or being an employee of the owner or being a government employee acting in an official capacity.

The person "in the right" by law and by normal expectation "is wrong" for pointing out and alerting someone that is most likely in the wrong of that fact.

They are not in the right though at least in my city, the ordnance against smoking in no way states the non-smoker should go over to inform the smoker of the law.

there are procedures in place, if someone is smoking where they are not legally able to call the owner or manager of the facility hell call the cops and get them to write a ticket. Call the city council and mayor and urge stronger laws against it. All these things are just fine, becoming the anti-smoking vigilante who must correct the evil doers makes you a tool.

[ThatOneDude]

@ThatGuyThere said in RL Anger:

@ThatOneDude said in RL Anger:

@ThatGuyThere As far as the issue I could care less I'm more interested in the responses I read after the post.

So smoking in a non-smoking area shouldn't be an issue and the person asking / telling the smoker about this fact is "wrong".
Yes unless that person is somehow authorized to do that either by owning or being an employee of the owner or being a government employee acting in an official capacity.

The person "in the right" by law and by normal expectation "is wrong" for pointing out and alerting someone that is most likely in the wrong of that fact.

They are not in the right though at least in my city, the ordnance against smoking in no way states the non-smoker should go over to inform the smoker of the law.

there are procedures in place, if someone is smoking where they are not legally able to call the owner or manager of the facility hell call the cops and get them to write a ticket. Call the city council and mayor and urge stronger laws against it. All these things are just fine, becoming the anti-smoking vigilante who must correct the evil doers makes you a tool.

The rational is so flawed I don't get it. So it's better to call the cops vs just saying, "Dude, smoking in here isn't allowed?"

Or "Hey I know you dig your dog but I think it's disgusting that he's here sniffing around the store and it messes with my allergies. Additionally it's illegal and someone might be a total dick and call the cops or animal control on you instead of just talking to you."

[ThatGuyThere]

The rational is so flawed I don't get it. So it's better to call the cops vs just saying, "Dude, smoking in here isn't allowed?"

In my opinion yes, though I would first talk to the manager of the establishment and if that had no results find somewhere else to shop before jumping to involvement of the police.
But I would call the cops before deciding I was societies hall monitor. Honestly if someone came over to talk to me about something like that my only response would be telling them to go fuck themselves.
And it has yet to be established if that was against the law in the grocery store it was in. Some states it is. Some it is not including the one I reside in.

[Tyche]

@ThatGuyThere said in RL Anger:

Yes it would. Unless you are a member of law enforcement it is not your job to enforce laws.

While it's not your responsibility to enforce laws, one certainly can under many circumstances.
I made a citizens arrest at a WalMart, effectively by detaining a pair of shoplifters.
Usually under State law a citizen can only make a warrant-less arrest for a felony, but in some States that also includes misdemeanors. Someone in Virginia made a citizens arrest for a seat belt violation.

[surreality]

@ThatGuyThere If it was illegal and I just don't know, I'd appreciate being informed as much politely, (obviously). Being stuck in a "D'oh, sorry, didn't realize!" position is way preferable to a $250 minimum fine and a misdemeanor on one's record.

It's hard to be in that 'don't know' position in this case, and it's just not the same situation re: dogs.

[Auspice]

I think re: being a dick, it's... shit, there's a term for it. My brain is coming up with 'care shaming,' but I don't think that's it.

But yeah, people think it's A-OK to butt in on other peoples' business out of "concern."

TBH I'm surprised the lady didn't go 'SOME PEOPLE have allergies,' because that's how it usually comes out.

Fake food allergies are the worst. I've known so many people in the restaurant industry. And people who pull the 'I'm allergic to onions' just to make sure they don't have onions in their food? Absolutely fucking self-centered assholes. Kitchens go through SO MUCH effort when they hear 'allergy' to make sure everything is safe.

[surreality]

@Auspice I always have to ask for 'no onions', but am careful about not mentioning the 'a' word for exactly that reason.

If they aren't cooked literally to death, it is almost a guarantee I will spend the evening re-enacting The Exorcist in a violent fashion, but it's not actually an allergy that will kill me; I just can't digest them properly and never could. Same goes for peppers and tomato.

(I am the worst Italian ever.)

[deadculture]

@surreality Your pizza must be very, very bland.

[surreality]

@deadculture It is. I am that person who gets no sauce. Or white pizza, since garlic I can actually do, at least.

My relatives despair of me.