4 ms·

Right. If I can break into your house, I should get your stuff. You should have had better locks and thicker doors. /s

by M_Grey 10y ago

wnevets 10y ago
How are those two even remotely similar?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Both depend on placing arbitrary limits on the victim of a crime, to excuse the perpetrator's behavior. It's not a crime to fail to take adequate precautions; it's a crime to try to rob someone, or harm them.
  - wnevets 10y ago
    >Both depend on placing arbitrary limits on the victim of a crime, to excuse the perpetrator's behavior They absolutely do not. If a person is sensitive/allergy to something why shouldn't it be that person's responsibility to avoid coming into contact with it? Should all gifs that MAY cause seizures be outlawed on the internet now? Why should it be the rest of the internet's responsibility not to have gifs that may cause seizures? What if I recommend an anime that may cause seizures, should I be arrested for recommending something?
    - belltaco 10y ago
      So if you get hit by a bullet it's your fault that you're not wearing bulletproof clothes? Or is it the fault of the person who deliberately tried to cause harm to you?
    - castis 10y ago
      The main force at work in this and similar cases is intent. A rational person could assume that someone prone to seizures triggered by flashing lights probably does go out of their way to avoid them. But when you're deliberately sent something with the intent to do harm, that changes things.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Did you recommend it to someone you knew to have seizures, with the intent to cause a seizure? I'm not really buying this whole trend in this thread of arguing what amounts to, "I should be able to fire my gun into a crowd, it's my right, they should be wearing Kevlar."
castis 10y ago
My knee jerk reaction was to respond "Well hold on now, that doesn't sound right..." but I'm now guessing you're trying to point out some absurdity in OPs comment?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That's absolutely correct, and I added a "/s" to clarify that. I should never forget Poe's Law after all. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
drdaeman 10y ago
That doesn't follow. If one's allergic they should avoid allergens. If one's known to be prone to seizures, they'd better avoid the cause. This doesn't mean its their fault, neither it implies that others are completely free to exploit this weakness. Yet, it still makes sense to take precautions.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  So if you take all of those precautions, and then I send you a letter coated with (for example) peanut extract... you what... shouldn't get mail? Should you have seen my assault coming?
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Nope. Unless I'm misunderstanding English (sorry, I'm not a native speaker), neither of those two are implications of "maybe you need to avoid it" statement. My understanding of the GP statement is taking it at its literal value. I.e. that if it's known that some animations one may encounter at random may be severely harmful to their health, it is possibly smart (a "maybe"-grade suggestion) to take some precaution by disabling animations. Which may be or may be not a good idea - depending on what value non-seizure-triggering animations have. No other things are implied by this (or at least I fail to see it), and I'm sure it doesn't imply that receiver should've somehow foreseen that they would be attacked that way.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      This guy didn't stumble across a dangerous animation, it was sent to him in the knowledge that it might hurt him. Presumably in his daily life he doesn't do a lot of raw Google image searches. What you're saying is, "You have this illness, and you've never slipped up with it. Someone else might maliciously send you an animation though, so no animations for you." That. Is. A. Problem.
      - drdaeman 10y ago
        No. I haven't said that, and I was trying to be really explicit about what exactly I meant. Sorry if I had failed to convey the exact meaning. I'm saying "if you're aware (and now that person is) that you have this illness it may be smart to take disable animations".

Right. If I can break into your house, I should get your stuff. You should have had better locks and thicker doors. /s

by M_Grey 10y ago

Right. If I can break into your house, I should get your stuff. You should have had better locks and thicker doors. /s

wnevets 10y ago

How are those two even remotely similar?

M_Grey 10y ago
Both depend on placing arbitrary limits on the victim of a crime, to excuse the perpetrator's behavior. It's not a crime to fail to take adequate precautions; it's a crime to try to rob someone, or harm them.
- wnevets 10y ago
  >Both depend on placing arbitrary limits on the victim of a crime, to excuse the perpetrator's behavior They absolutely do not. If a person is sensitive/allergy to something why shouldn't it be that person's responsibility to avoid coming into contact with it? Should all gifs that MAY cause seizures be outlawed on the internet now? Why should it be the rest of the internet's responsibility not to have gifs that may cause seizures? What if I recommend an anime that may cause seizures, should I be arrested for recommending something?
  - belltaco 10y ago
    So if you get hit by a bullet it's your fault that you're not wearing bulletproof clothes? Or is it the fault of the person who deliberately tried to cause harm to you?
  - castis 10y ago
    The main force at work in this and similar cases is intent. A rational person could assume that someone prone to seizures triggered by flashing lights probably does go out of their way to avoid them. But when you're deliberately sent something with the intent to do harm, that changes things.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Did you recommend it to someone you knew to have seizures, with the intent to cause a seizure? I'm not really buying this whole trend in this thread of arguing what amounts to, "I should be able to fire my gun into a crowd, it's my right, they should be wearing Kevlar."

castis 10y ago

My knee jerk reaction was to respond "Well hold on now, that doesn't sound right..." but I'm now guessing you're trying to point out some absurdity in OPs comment?

M_Grey 10y ago
That's absolutely correct, and I added a "/s" to clarify that. I should never forget Poe's Law after all. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

drdaeman 10y ago

That doesn't follow. If one's allergic they should avoid allergens. If one's known to be prone to seizures, they'd better avoid the cause. This doesn't mean its their fault, neither it implies that others are completely free to exploit this weakness. Yet, it still makes sense to take precautions.

M_Grey 10y ago
So if you take all of those precautions, and then I send you a letter coated with (for example) peanut extract... you what... shouldn't get mail? Should you have seen my assault coming?
- drdaeman 10y ago
  Nope. Unless I'm misunderstanding English (sorry, I'm not a native speaker), neither of those two are implications of "maybe you need to avoid it" statement. My understanding of the GP statement is taking it at its literal value. I.e. that if it's known that some animations one may encounter at random may be severely harmful to their health, it is possibly smart (a "maybe"-grade suggestion) to take some precaution by disabling animations. Which may be or may be not a good idea - depending on what value non-seizure-triggering animations have. No other things are implied by this (or at least I fail to see it), and I'm sure it doesn't imply that receiver should've somehow foreseen that they would be attacked that way.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    This guy didn't stumble across a dangerous animation, it was sent to him in the knowledge that it might hurt him. Presumably in his daily life he doesn't do a lot of raw Google image searches. What you're saying is, "You have this illness, and you've never slipped up with it. Someone else might maliciously send you an animation though, so no animations for you." That. Is. A. Problem.
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      No. I haven't said that, and I was trying to be really explicit about what exactly I meant. Sorry if I had failed to convey the exact meaning. I'm saying "if you're aware (and now that person is) that you have this illness it may be smart to take disable animations".