4 ms·
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; i
by 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 agoSo 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 agoThe 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 agoDid 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."