I kind of hope the father of an epileptic shoots one of these griefers with a deer rifle in order to "make them aware that they should be wearing ballistic vests".
Oh I'm sorry, it would seem you got confused on your way to YouTube and ended up here. For the record, the solution to every problem or disagreement isn't "shoot the offender."
It is a quality YouTube-style comment, however; you've even gotten specific as to the type of rifle, suggesting you've given more than a moment's thought to this punishment.
It was to illustrate the point that the argument is deeply flawed. Exploiting a weakness in a violent or destructive manner simply to draw attention to it is never acceptable.
If you did believe it to be so, then you would have to carry it out to its logical conclusion and walk around with body armor on.
Perhaps I should have chosen something besides firearms as an example, as they tend to cause a fairly visceral reaction. It wasn't meant to be a "First kill all of the lawyers" post, it was meant to be a "if you believe that nonsense, then you actually do believe in "kill all of the lawyers" justice" post.
No, in context it's clear that this post isn't a real death threat. It's a Guns-and-Ammo-flavored riff designed to subtly point out that attempting to cause seizures in epileptics is, in fact, reckless endangerment with a hint of manslaughter.
The fact that it takes careful literary judgement to tell the difference between this wry comment and a death threat illustrates the central fact of Internet life: software can't prevent trolls. Human beings - editors and mods - are needed to prevent trolls.
Well obviously it's not a real death threat; I've been using the Interwebs a long time and I've never seen a single legit threat of any sort.
Perhaps I misinterpreted the entire comment, but if so it's only because it seems to be common now to threaten or recommend death upon anyone who does anything one doesn't approve of. I've seen enough of that in the real world and I've grown tired of seeing it on the Internet, where most people have no understanding of what they're saying and nobody seems to get that killing the opposing viewpoint is not the solution since their viewpoint is what creates the contrast necessary for you to have one in the first place.
So, to conclude, I apologize to noonespecial for the flame; my patience with an increasingly intelligence-diluted Web wanes.
Thanks, dude. For my part, in the future, I will use "bonk them over the head with a large wooden mallet to make them aware that they should be wearing helmets."
This will both avoid the use of the firearm image (and its strong, overused, negative connotations), and more directly imply that its a humorous post.
Sorry to stir the pot folks, but I am a bit tired of the "I was trying to help them by showing them their weakness" line of BS use to justify violence, destruction, and other blatantly antisocial behavior. I feel quite strongly that they wouldn't be such good sports if someone else were to point out some of their weaknesses in like manner.
Actually, for me the comment is so sarcastic to the point of being funny (hunter: do you really think that that vigilante act would bring justice or would it be disproportionate?). But, these trollers are lying when they say "look, because we did this, it shows that you should be more alert to people who can also do it but actually intend harm." Or, "we've hurt your feelings, maybe you need to toughen up cupcakes, next time it could concern something that actually mattered." To me, the serious trollers do intend harm for the most part and they say it in this interview. Their excuses are a lie. They are the practical jokers that go overboard, placing white hats over their black hats when things go bad.
I saw a documentary once of a team of people boarding a plane during its refueling and restocking at an airport. They ran down the aisles jumping around. Their message of "look what we can do and no one can stop us" should be taken seriously, and they had then intent to help.
If someone wants to do some white-hat cracking for real benefit, why not announce it before the act has taken place and do it in a way where the recipient can at least first respond and say, "no, we'll do it ourselves" or thanks go ahead. If they ignore such a warning, the cracker can go ahead and at least have some form of recourse. I can't see many crackers doing that anyway, and the whole area's shady. White-hat crackers are usually treated like criminals.
The desire to shock or somehow get a rise out of somebody, supposedly in the interest of education, often reveals that the perpetrator really just wants to shock someone.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
(note the words "essential" and "temporary" in there, the interesting discussion is about what qualifies as essential liberty in this debate and whether or not the safety provided would be temporary or have a more lasting effect.)
