Florida man denied tacos. Calls 911

[Tyrianth]

It doesn't warrant draconian measures that you seem fond of, such as banning all males from public, under penalty of death. Or some such nonsense. There's no ravenous drive-through window employee attacking hordes of pedestrians, and there equally isn't hordes of men just circling cities raping everything they see.

"Draconian" oh my god you're a piece of work.

[Azadina]

"Draconian" oh my god you're a piece of work.

Blanket ban for miniscule "threat" is exactly that.

[Azadina]

Not allowing pedestrians in the drive thru doesn't really seem even remotely comparable to the actually draconian measures you used as examples.

It's in essence the same idea. Minor threat? Ban everything that causes it, even if it doesn't!

[Tyrianth]

Blanket ban for miniscule "threat" is exactly that.

Is a store doing a blanket ban on all $100 bills also draconian?

[Azadina]

Is a store doing a blanket ban on all $100 bills also draconian?

The relevance is? That 100 dollar bill is not a security threat by itself. You still need to ban the people on foot, as it was. Allow people in cars only.

It's really not. You just compared a slight inconvenience towards debilitating restrictions to autonomy under pain of death. You're basically just disregarding the reasons for the restriction, which I'm glad you think they're dumb, but you're not the person legally liable on the off chance it happens, who then has to deal with the fact that one occurrence of it just outweighed any potential gain from lifting the policy.

I never claimed the impact to be the same. Some person just wanted to use rape as some example of his, without providing any idea how to solve it. So I use the same logic to solve it, that he has been defending here all along; ban the possible cause.

[Tyrianth]

who then has to deal with the fact that one occurrence of it just outweighed any potential gain from lifting the policy.

And that there is Risk Analysis.

[Azadina]

And that there is Risk Analysis.

Remove the frivolous lawsuits and you got that fixed too.

[Azadina]

Why would he need to solve it when he was using an analogy to suggest that you were claiming it couldn't be a problem because you've never personally witnessed it? He quite obviously is fairly OK with the policy (policies really) that is in place to prevent it.

It's not really comparable if his opinion is suddenly reverse on it. With both issues being rare and preventable.

[BananaHandsB]

Feels like made up safety issue. Drivers are not allowed to drive over people = problem solved. What safety issue for the employee? The person in the car can step out, rob you with a gun, and oh look, they have nice getaway car an inch away from them. That person on foot would flee faster than one with car, how?

So people should walk down the highway? We can drive our cars down the sidewalk? People are not allowed to drive over people right, so it should be safe = problem solved?

Seriously...There are some places where it is unsafe for pedestrians. The drive-thru is one of them. You do realize they made this rule after many cases of accidents happening?

[Azadina]

So people should walk down the highway? We can drive our cars down the sidewalk? People shouldn't drive over people right, so it should be safe = problem solved?

Seriously...There are some places where it is unsafe for pedestrians. The drive-thru is one of them. You realize they made this rule after many cases of accidents happening.

Since when is a small drive-thru lane a highway? Are you aware of say...Speed limit differences for one thing?

Should all roads be outlawed that are in shared use by pedestrians and cars? Smaller roads that is? Ban all right?

[BananaHandsB]

Since when is a small drive-thru lane a highway? Are you aware of say...Speed limit differences for one thing?

Should all roads be outlawed that are in shared use by pedestrians and cars? Smaller roads that is? Ban all right?

Don't try to push the analogy to break. That's not the intent. The point is, it is unsafe to walk through a drive thru, and it's been proven. Why would taco bell take on more lawsuits than they need to just to serve a drunk every once and awhile? And the real point is people not being allowed to drive over people does not = problem solved as you so elegantly put.

[Azadina]

This is really stupid because you're still ignoring the gaping chasm between the extremeness of the two situations. Nobody's basic freedoms are impeded by a private business refusing to serve them at the drive thru as a pedestrian. Demanding males remain indoors under threat of execution would be on par with the worst aspects of the Nazis. Your example is ridiculous and you should feel bad for trying to pass it off as similar to the one being discussed.

Don't complain about it to me. He wanted to pull extreme example such as rape, with no explanation on how the threat is to be countered. I don't have to invent one for him, when I see he likes blanket banning causes of rare threats. Until he comes up with one, I assume that's the one he'd like used.

Don't try to push the analogy to break. That's not the intent. The point is, it is unsafe to walk through a drive thru, and it's been proven. Why would taco bell take on more lawsuits than they need to just to serve a drunk every once and awhile? And the real point is people not being allowed to drive over people does not = problem solved as you so elegantly put.

Whom do you sue for frivolous lawsuits when someone is run over on shared road? The closest business owner, because reasons? City, god, universe? Oh, how about the one who ran you over?

[Deleted]

In all fairness to the Florida Man, what fucking fast food restaurant ONLY has drive through open? And what senseless lack of emotion human being behind the counter couldn't sympathyze with the man and credit him for not drunk driving and just disobey the rules this once and give the man his food.

[BananaHandsB]

In all fairness to the Florida Man, what fucking fast food restaurant ONLY has drive through open? And what senseless lack of emotion human being behind the counter couldn't sympathyze with the man and credit him for not drunk driving and just disobey the rules this once and give the man his food.

They do it almost entirely to avoid a bunch of drunk dudes like this guy coming in their store, causing more problems than it's worth the money they're paying. Late hours like that, if you don't have a car to go through the drive-thru, there's a good chance you're drunk.

[Tyrianth]

Don't complain about it to me. He wanted to pull extreme example such as rape, with no explanation on how the threat is to be countered. I don't have to invent one for him, when I see he likes blanket banning causes of rare threats. Until he comes up with one, I assume that's the one he'd like used.



Whom do you sue for frivolous lawsuits when someone is run over on shared road? The closest business owner, because reasons? City, god, universe? Oh, how about the one who ran you over?

I'm sorry, I'm pushing extreme examples? You fucking tried to bring tanks into this LOL you're a joke....

[Deleted]

They do it almost entirely to avoid a bunch of drunk dudes like this guy coming in their store, causing more problems than it's worth the money they're paying. Late hours like that, if you don't have a car to go through the drive-thru, there's a good chance you're drunk.

They should have a Drunk-through. Only for late night drunk people. Feels like they miss an opportunity to get sales when they deny drunk people the ability to buy their food.

[BananaHandsB]

They should have a Drunk-through. Only for late night drunk people. Feels like they miss an opportunity to get sales when they deny drunk people the ability to buy their food.

They kinda had this where i went to college. There was a taco bell right by the two most popular bars (Purdue guys, u know what I'm talking about) that was in a strip mall-type building so they didn't have access to a drive thru. They would get so much business on thurs-sat night, they stayed open till 3 AM. It was pure chaos in there, but the line literally went out the door all night, so you know they were making enough money to make it worth it.

[Azadina]

I'm sorry, I'm pushing extreme examples? You fucking tried to bring tanks into this LOL you're a joke....

Based on that I have seen one use drive-thru. It's a real threat. I never specified how unlikely one, but neither did you say how likely those murderous pedestrians are to attack employees, if they are allowed to use the window. Because you know, people who commit crime always wait for your approval for it, right? The only joke is you. Defending nonsense rules over nonsense threats. You think bank robbers won't rob a bank, if they are not allowed to enter? LOL at you.

Aren't you a genius by the way. Just have it written on all stores entries, that no thieves or burglars are allowed entry, and you eliminated all the crime! And since they are such moral people, they won't go commit a crime, if you make it a crime for them to enter a place where they'd commit a crime! Surely that's the one they'll follow, since they don't care about the stealing being a crime.

[Tyrianth]

Based on that I have seen one use drive-thru. It's a real threat. I never specified how unlikely one, but neither did you say how likely those murderous pedestrians are to attack employees, if they are allowed to use the window. Because you know, people who commit crime always wait for your approval for it, right? The only joke is you. Defending nonsense rules over nonsense threats. You think bank robbers won't rob a bank, if they are not allowed to enter? LOL at you.

Is it a real threat? I haven't seen any evidences of it nor have you posted any. Your arguments are hilarious though. Full of fallacies, no thought, and clearly you lack a basic understanding of security. I'll say this one morepre time for you: no policy is going to stop crime 100%. The point is deterrence. I'm guessing you lock your doors at night? You do not that's going to stop someone who wants to murder you right?

[Azadina]

Is it a real threat? I haven't seen any evidences of it nor have you posted any. Your arguments are hilarious though. Full of fallacies, no thought, and clearly you lack a basic understanding of security. I'll say this onepre time for you: no policy is going to stop crime 100%. The point is deterrence. I'm guessing you lock your doors at night? You do not that's going to stop someone who wants to murder you right?

I don't put up posters on my door saying "no murderers allowed"

Guess what genius, it's already ILLEGAL to murder someone. Do you find it that you are really thinking with your head? "those criminals sure won't attack the employees, if I put a poster saying they are not allowed to"