5 ms·
100%, and not just as devil's advocate. Let the punishment fit the crime. My sympathies are entirely on the side of the game's author. It's just an obscene
by jonahx 3y ago
100%, and not just as devil's advocate. Let the punishment fit the crime.
My sympathies are entirely on the side of the game's author. It's just an obscene image -- the "collateral damage" in this case is perfectly acceptable and imo fair because it damages the brands of the illegal hosters.
- balls187 3y agoYou’ll feel different about collateral damage when you have children of your own.
- jonahx 3y agoI already do.
- Grangar 3y agoGoatse is a right of passage and when my chuldren will inevitably stumble upon it one day I will be there to talk to them about it if they feel a need to. At the end of the day it's just a man stretching out his anus in bad lighting.
- fennecfoxy 3y agoYeah, I wouldn't allow my children unfettered access to the Internet and I certainly wouldn't be using an iPhone or tablet as a babysitter. However as a gay nerd I'm not really interested in having children, so I'll just have to leave it up to the village.
- akoboldfrying 3y agoI'm a little sympathetic to the author because I don't consider viewing the image all that damaging, but I'm not a fan of the general principle of hurting innocent bystanders in order to cause second-order pain to a third party. I think you'd probably agree that, say, overwriting every file on the end user's computer with a text file complaining about how the iframe-wielding website steals content would be an unacceptable thing for the author to do. But the only difference would be the degree of suffering inflicted on the innocent bystander.
- jonahx 3y agoThe difference is that I rate the amount of "hurt" to the viewers as essentially zero in this case, and I think the concern is misplaced pearl-clutching.
- akoboldfrying 3y agoAgree for adults. Don't agree for young kids. If you think this image is acceptable to show to young kids, are there any images you think are unacceptable to show them?
- jonahx 3y agoImages of violence. Also the phrase "you think this image is acceptable to show to young kids" subtly alters my position in a disingenuous and (I think) intentional way. My position is not that you should "show young kids goatse" but that "a young kid seeing a flash of goatse isn't really a big deal". They might laugh, they might be a little grossed out, they might be curious why someone would do something so strange. I think the idea that they would be "harmed" or "traumatized" is pure adult projection.
- akoboldfrying 3y agoSome apparent dichotomies are false, but "viewing/not viewing an image" is the real deal. (Do you want to make the case that a small exposure time represents a genuine midpoint between these extremes, to justify treating "a flash" of goatse as a special case, distinct from "viewing" it? If so, then right now I disagree, but would be interested in hearing your reasons why.) I think there is a genuine change in meaning, coming from your use of the word "should": >My position is not that you should "show young kids goatse But that's not a word I used (or intended). ETA: Agree on images of violence.