TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
The_KFD_Case wrote...
TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
The_KFD_Case wrote...
TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
The_KFD_Case wrote...
I didn't mind. You gave proper warning and it was via a link thus no one was forced to see the image in question.
people that dont undertsand pron might click on it however so they didnt have sufficient warning
Nonetheless a warning was provided. An individual - barring certain mitigating circumstances - is not absolved of individual initiative and consequent responsibility. "Freedom under responsibility" as the officers and NCOs used to say to us in the Army.
he didnt give sufficient warning...sufficient warning would have been something to the effect of: picture cntaining pornographic material.click at own risk... his obscure warning is horrible considering not everyone is bothered by the same material. my warning would have a better chance at not leading someone to be offended by the material depicted
In your opinion. My opinion differs. He provided a warning. That should indicate to any person at least halfway capable of intelligent, independent thought that there might be something of "danger" at the end of that link. If they decided to act on their curiosity then that is their own free choice and thus their responsibility.
but u said urself that u dont mind it...therefor it is not a danger to you...unless someone new where the link was going they couldnt be held responsible for wat was posted at the end....and u cant absolve jake for giving them the link...and how does telling them outright that is is porn not better that seems like a far better warning...
lets compare the two...
warning porn here...may offend viewers!!!! mine
warning!!!! urs
it would appear mine is the more informative and thus better...warnings are meant to guide someone away or properly inform them of a potential decsion of taking an action... so because mine was more informative, mine is better...it would appear ither u are blatantly wrong in this area. or you are merely trying to find someway to protect this regardless if it has logic behind it...
I not only can absolve Jake, I already have. That
your moral compass doesn't agree with
mine is a separate matter and not to be confused with the debate at hand.
Fact: Jake provided a worded warning.
Fact: The worded warning was tied to a link leading out of this thread and thus not part of BioWare's forum property.
Fact: No one was forced to click on the link.
Fact: Anyone whom clicked on the link either did so accidentally or through their own free volition.
Fact. If the link was clicked on through own free volition then the responsibility of that immediate action rests with the individual that made that decision and executed the action.
What you are now essentially arguing is that someone else always bears the responsibility. It would be akin to saying that weapons manufacturers are responsible for the acts of individuals whom decide to use their weapons to kill others. Not only is that false, but it also leads to a potentially never ending chain of blaming someone or something else for everything until everyone is included in the blame chain.