I ordered a takeaway and found that the fish-flavored shredded pork used chicken. Should I complain about him?

On this issue, everyone seems to be divided into two completely different views:

Fish-flavored shredded pork, as one of the top ten famous dishes in Sichuan cuisine, is made of pork by default. Of course, you can complain.

(2) Fish-flavored shredded pork does not specify what meat must be used, so as long as it is cooked, there will be no wife in the old lady's cake. Why not sue him?

From the general description of these two viewpoints, we can see that the starting point of the debate, or the standard of measurement, is not the same. In fact, even the demands are inconsistent, and "appeal" is not the same as "prosecution" or "litigation to the law".

Let's talk about the simple difference between "complaining" and "you sue him", as some friends have said.

"Complaint" means that diners are not satisfied with the external sales, so they ask the platform and the store.

React in order to express one's dissatisfaction or get compensation. "Prosecution" means that diners initiate a lawsuit against the platform or store to the court.

Legal appeal

In addition to expressing their more formal and serious dissatisfaction, platforms or stores may also face more direct liability for compensation, and may even be criminally liable. These are two completely different concepts.

And because the content of the topic description is not so serious, so for a better understanding, let's explain it directly and simply.

First of all, our view is that this kind of thing can be complained, and the emphasis is on "can" rather than "should", because "complaint" is not a legal appeal, but the diners are dissatisfied with the food, so we can complain (whether "should" is more subjective and personal, and there is nothing to discuss). Although there is no explicit stipulation that the main ingredient of fish-flavored shredded pork must be pork, some problems are not serious enough to need to be raised to the legal level. Generally speaking, widely recognized, traditional and established views are used as the judging criteria, and the operation of "complaining" is not a legal appeal in itself, so it is not a legal appeal. Is it unreasonable for us to use a complaint handling method that has not risen to the legal level?

Some friends may have some explanations such as "forgive others" and "it is understandable that pork is so expensive recently", but this can be said to be human nature rather than reason. If human feelings and truth are intertwined when discussing a problem, it is not clear how to discuss it, and there will be endless arguments.

If we insist that the fish-flavored shredded pork made of chicken is "fish-flavored with meat, which makes sense" and "fish-flavored shredded pork is not fish-flavored shredded pork, so we can't complain about any meat", it is really the same as what is said in the funny sketch. "Shark's fin fried rice" can also be understood as "the rice fried by a chef named shark's fin", and this "shark's fin" can even be fooled by homonym. Similarly, "white meat with garlic paste" can also be replaced by cheap white bazaar fish and chicken breast, with garlic paste and white meat, or even without seasonings such as soy sauce.

But this has become a word game, which has no positive significance for businesses and consumers.

. Consumers feel cheated and businesses lose credibility.

Unless the catering industry is specialized in tourist business, diners will only be fooled once

People will never come again next time. Word of mouth is harmful and useless, and there may be only a little profit.

Therefore, looking at this problem comprehensively, if diners initiate complaints, it is actually a good thing for stores that want to continue to operate for a long time.