• Ledivin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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?

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      27 minutes ago

      The (very obvious) difference is that she actually drugged 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).

      • Ledivin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        36 minutes ago

        while only possibly endangering people.

        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.

        • tomi000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 minutes ago

          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.

      • JandroDelSol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        45 minutes ago

        saying she drugged kids implies that she intentionally gave them drugs, not that they went out of their way to steal them from her