this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
132 points (97.1% liked)

News

33209 readers
3308 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

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?

[–] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's actually in the story.

Detectives say during McGillem’s interview, observations made and information obtained led them to believe that she had operated a vehicle while impaired.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

and....

Following the interview, McGillem was booked into the Steuben County Jail on the following preliminary charges.

Neglect of a Dependent

Possession of a Controlled Substance on School Property

Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thnks for pointing that out. Didnt read the whole thing. The comment sounded like it was their own theory.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

it's cool, you got 5 easy upvotes!

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] JandroDelSol@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Right. Changed it, doesnt really change the point though.