The (very obvious) difference is that she actuallydrugged caused kids eating edibles while only possibly endangering actually endangering but only possibly hurting people while driving.
Thats like saying driving in any state sober or not is worse than shooting someone in the leg because you can kill someone while driving but a shot in the leg isnt deadly.
Also, kids with their brains not completely developed arent “literally 100% fine” consuming THC, it can have very serious consequences. Heck, even adults can get seizures or psychosis from weed if theyre predisposed. You should get your stoner facts straight (not meant as an insult to stoners, I love weed).
The endangerment isn’t debatable. Do you actually believe it’s only considered endangerment if something bad happens? Insanity. You’re aware that driving under the influence is illegal even if you don’t hit someone, yeah?
Thats like saying driving in any state sober or not is worse than shooting someone in the leg because you can kill someone while driving but a shot in the leg isnt deadly.
If we’re just gonna make up weird, unrelated strawmen I guess I could join in but I don’t have time right now. Maybe I’ll come back later and concoct some inane, irrelevant scenario for you.
Jesus you guys are so pedantic with the wording. English isnt even my first language. Yeah, she actually endangered people. What I wanted to say is the endangerment didnt cause actual harm in that case. It doesnt make it right but its still much better than causing actual harm.
Also its not a strawman, I literally said “its like saying”, I made a comparison. A strawman argument would be if I pretended like you implied shooting someone in the leg is worse than driving a car.
You cited the possibility of greater harm as the reason for it being worse than actually causing lesser harm. I made an example where that obviously doesnt apply to make the point that the possibility of causing greater harm does not automatically make an action worse than an other.
What I wanted to say is the endangerment didnt cause actual harm in that case. It doesnt make it right but its still much better than causing actual harm.
But your “actual endangerment” didn’t actually happen either? They ate weed gummies and had no demonstrable negative effects afterwards, according to the article. Why am I required to address your “potential harm” that never occurred while you get to ignore the other side?
Also its not a strawman, I literally said “its like saying”, I made a comparison
Did you not just complain about being pedantic about wording immediately before this sentence? Yes, a comparison can absolutely be a strawman. You’re concocting a scenario that is more favorable to your argument than the one that actually happened.
But your “actual endangerment” didn’t actually happen either? They ate weed gummies and had no demonstrable negative effects afterwards, according to the article. Why am I required to address your “potential harm” that never occurred while you get to ignore the other side?
Did it say that in the article? I would still consider non consensual drug consumption to be harm in any case, not to mention there may be negative aftereffects that are not immediately obvious.
Did you not just complain about being pedantic about wording immediately before this sentence?
True, but how was that about wording?
Anyway, I dont think were getting anywhere, we just seem to have different views about the harmfulness of some actions.
Especially since we make THC edibles look and taste like candy. Adn she just left then sitting out which says she was stoned at work.
The bigger problem is this loser was driving to and from school stoned.
How is that a bigger problem than drugging kids, are you serious?
And why are you even assuming your baseless theories as facts?
Because I actually read the article, Cheech.
I guess some people are cool with impaired driving.
I realized that from an other comment. Havent read the whole thing, admittedly. But “… which says she was …” sounded like you were assuming things.
Still not worse than drugging kids imo.
You’ll be literally 100% fine after a day if you eat a THC edible. That might not be true if you get hit by a car.
How on earth is that hard to understand?
The (very obvious) difference is that she actually
druggedcaused kids eating edibles whileonly possibly endangeringactually endangering but only possibly hurting people while driving.Thats like saying driving in any state sober or not is worse than shooting someone in the leg because you can kill someone while driving but a shot in the leg isnt deadly.
Also, kids with their brains not completely developed arent “literally 100% fine” consuming THC, it can have very serious consequences. Heck, even adults can get seizures or psychosis from weed if theyre predisposed. You should get your stoner facts straight (not meant as an insult to stoners, I love weed).
The endangerment isn’t debatable. Do you actually believe it’s only considered endangerment if something bad happens? Insanity. You’re aware that driving under the influence is illegal even if you don’t hit someone, yeah?
If we’re just gonna make up weird, unrelated strawmen I guess I could join in but I don’t have time right now. Maybe I’ll come back later and concoct some inane, irrelevant scenario for you.
Jesus you guys are so pedantic with the wording. English isnt even my first language. Yeah, she actually endangered people. What I wanted to say is the endangerment didnt cause actual harm in that case. It doesnt make it right but its still much better than causing actual harm.
Also its not a strawman, I literally said “its like saying”, I made a comparison. A strawman argument would be if I pretended like you implied shooting someone in the leg is worse than driving a car.
You cited the possibility of greater harm as the reason for it being worse than actually causing lesser harm. I made an example where that obviously doesnt apply to make the point that the possibility of causing greater harm does not automatically make an action worse than an other.
But your “actual endangerment” didn’t actually happen either? They ate weed gummies and had no demonstrable negative effects afterwards, according to the article. Why am I required to address your “potential harm” that never occurred while you get to ignore the other side?
Did you not just complain about being pedantic about wording immediately before this sentence? Yes, a comparison can absolutely be a strawman. You’re concocting a scenario that is more favorable to your argument than the one that actually happened.
Did it say that in the article? I would still consider non consensual drug consumption to be harm in any case, not to mention there may be negative aftereffects that are not immediately obvious.
True, but how was that about wording?
Anyway, I dont think were getting anywhere, we just seem to have different views about the harmfulness of some actions.
saying she drugged kids implies that she intentionally gave them drugs, not that they went out of their way to steal them from her
Right. Changed it, doesnt really change the point though.