deleted by creator

Me? No, I’m not. That’s the argument of the person I’m responding to.

Do you realize how complex proper sampling is, or expensive the testing is? Ideally you’re also going to be looking for bacterial and fungal growth as well. I see no reason that high potency cannabis - also the most efficient in terms of energy for light/cooling, water usage, fertilizer usage per quantity THC - shouldn’t be commercially available, tested to pharmaceutical standards, and regulated to permit users to make responsible decisions.

Arguing for low potency cannabis is forcing others to be wasteful because you can’t regulate your own consumption. I don’t get absolutely stupid with strong weed or extracts, it’s just nice to not have to smoke an entire gram joint before bed. A few hits is all I need.

I said it should be tested and labeled properly so consumers can make their own decisions. The article sucks, it’s not “verifiable fact”. Hit me with those peer reviewed studies in a journal worth a shit if it’s such a fact.

You can’t prevent people from growing it themselves at home no, but selling high grade over the counter? Heeeell no. Not in my country.

You want people who would like to use strong cannabis have to go to the black market instead of buying something tested and labeled over the counter and making an informed decision.

That’s fine to have your own opinion but don’t restrict my rights to grow the stickiest of the icky. Sometimes I want to roast a fat joint and be functional. Sometimes I just want to sleep without toking for a half hour. One hit shit absolutely has its place, and with accurate labeling, you can be the judge.

This article blows. “Genetically modifying” cannabis for higher THC content? You mean breeding, like every other plant grown for consumption?

Housing is a bit different than concert tickets, both in terms of how essential it is and the interest rate involved. I’m not putting concert tickets on anything that’s accruing interest, that’s simply a bad financial decision.

We live in an unjust world and it’s not likely he’ll face consequences in line with his actions.

See also China, Korea, and Japan discussing free trade.

What I’m trying to say is they’re going to use pedantic definitions of what’s classified, or what is “war plans”, to distract from the issue. You can make a case for these people needing to be severely reprimanded even if the leaks were completely unclassified. I’ve seen people get fucked up for way less with unclassified information.

I think it’s because your average person doesn’t know the difference between classified and sensitive information.

Classified or not is mostly a moot point to me. It’s still extremely sensitive information and I’ve seen servicemembers get fucked over for much more minor infractions, like posting on Facebook when they’re going to be deployed or leave port.

At no point did I say this was ineffective at extorting men. I am saying that due to societal biases women tend to be judged (unfairly, in case that’s not clear) more than men for any given sexual activity. This makes blackmail more effective.

I feel like this would be much easier to attribute to “boys will be boys” than an excuse for women. The odds of being negatively judged for being a slut are significantly higher for women than they are for a man.

I’m not saying men aren’t negatively judged for these things, but if you took 100 people and showed them equally compromising pictures, my money is on more people negatively judging the woman. It’s a deep rooted societal bias.

I think the reason men are more likely to send unsolicited nudes is because there’s not going to be near as much consequence as compared to a woman. Same reason I think blackmail with nudes is likely more effective on women.

Not the commenter you replied to, but I would say it’s more effective on women due societal biases. Of course men can be extorted with nudes too, but the same tactic will be more effective if used on a female population. There’s still an expectation for women to be modest, or at least more so than men. How often do you see women topless vs men?

You know, I didn’t even realize that when my pre-coffee morning brain wrote my comment.

Pulse shooting - 49 dead, 53 injured
The Station nightclub fire - 100 dead, 230 injured

Pulse shooting doesn’t even make the top 20 of nightclub disasters - fire is much more of a threat, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires

Also, a ceiling coated with highly flammable material

hiding in plain sight

secretly buried beneath 23 metres of limestone flakes

Well, which one is it?

Basically it’s almost ensured that most multicellular life is toast.

Based on what? Look at previous extinction events, especially Permian-Triassic. The earth survived 2500ppm CO2 concentration and an 8℃ increase in temperature. Tons of species went extinct but it was very far from being a lifeless rock.

Chicxulub impact? That makes simultaneously detonating all the nuclear weapons ever produced by humans look like a firecracker.

I don’t disagree with your assessment that tons of life will be absolutely fucked. I don’t agree though that we can somehow end life altogether on Earth. I don’t even think we could do that if we tried.

Sure, why not? It’s not illegal.