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.
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.