WARNING: There is a current thread that contains a graphic image:

[Le Taz Hot]

A post within this thread: F*#k you Michael Vick, you dog killing asshole (Foles FTW!)

Contains a horrible graphic image of an abused animal.

[Happyhippychick]

1. Thank you! That would have ruined my day!

[Le Taz Hot]

2. I and others have asked and asked and asked people not to do that

but the pleadings go unheeded. The last time I started a thread about this issue it was suggested that instead of DU, I switch to AOL.

Sometimes compassion and understanding are hard to find even on a so-called "liberal" board. (sigh)

[darkangel218]

3. The image is graphic.

But what MV did should not be brushed under the carpet, but rather reminded and warned of.

( not me who posted the said pic, I just understand why it was posted.)

[TBF]

4. Agreed -

Better if a post has a warning in the title but I understand the anger towards Vick.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. I am an animal lover of the first magnitude

and will never forget the description of what he did to those animals. But there is an actual condition having to do with hypersensitivity to graphic images. From what I've read approximately 10% of the population suffers from this. When we see a graphic image it stays with us FOREVER. It's like it runs over and over and over in our heads and there's no way to stop it and there's no way to "just get over it." I'm just pleading for people to post a WARNING if they feel compelled to include such graphic imagery.

You have compassion for animals, can't you find compassion in your heart for those of us that suffer from this condition?

[malaise]

10. As far as I remember he served his sentence

What more do you want?

[madokie]

6. Sometimes people suck

when they do that without a warning.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Kick

[Liberal_in_LA]

8. thanks for the warning

[kiva]

9. I opened the thread before I saw your warning -

and thanks for posting it, I hate coming on pics like that unexpectedly - but (happily) didn't see the photo...I don't know if the OP took it down, which would be good, or if I've simply adblocked stuff from that source (which happens often) so the photo didn't open.

[lpbk2713]

11. I don't care anything about Michael Vick

... so I wasn't likely to click on it.

But I'm glad you were considerate enough to post a warning just the same.

[quinnox]

12. Had trashed the thread already, just on principle, but thanks anyway

Dog threads are an 'auto-trash' for me.

But its a requirement to use a graphic warning label when posting disturbing images, too many seem to think its optional or can be done out of "being nice", they need to read the terms of service.

[Agschmid]

13. TOS.

So if you are referencing this...

Don't post "shock content" or porn.

Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust. Do not post or link to pornography.

It says nothing about putting a warning in place. I get that it might be nice to do but it is hardly a requirement as you suggest. And I do not feel that the image was placed there for "no other purpose than to shock of disgust".

I would suggest that if you feel the image violates the TOS that you alert on said image.

[quinnox]

14. Yep, it looks like they dropped that part, and said you can't post those in the first place

It used to say you should put a warning, but looks like it was changed, now it says you can't post those kinds of images at all.

I think people should alert on images that meet this criteria, and let duers know it is not permitted.

[Agschmid]

16. I agree.

If someone feels it violates the TOS, that is the right time to alert or ask the poster to remove the images.

[madinmaryland]

15. Ok. Would you be offended if I was offended by the graphic image represented by

your avatar?

[Le Taz Hot]

17. This has nothing to do with being "offended."

I'm sorry you CHOOSE not to understand and that you CHOOSE not to have compassion for those of us who suffer from this condition.

[madinmaryland]

18. What condition are you referring to? Please explain, as I did not know what you are referring to.

Which is why I referred to being offended. Some may find your avatar irrationally graphic, while others may find a picture of a wounded animal irrationally graphic.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. It's a hypersensitivity to graphic images.

I explained it in one of the posts above. I've no idea what the rest of your post means. Mine is a simple request, if you're going to post pictures of tortured animals, babies, individuals, gory content, please put a "Graphic" warning label in the Subject Line.

[Ptah]

20. Unfortunately, the jury let it stand:

At Sun Dec 8, 2013, 04:26 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Because of this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4149881

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

There is no need for gratuitous photos. They make DU suck.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Dec 8, 2013, 04:42 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is what it looks like, for the Vick apologists.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Graphic photos should at least have a warning. And tho jurors don't uphold the TOS, there is a clause that says not to post graphic photos "for no purpose other than to shock and disgust."
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Should've put a GRAPHIC warning before the post, but a photo in this thread had to be expected.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is a shocking post, but to diminish the enormity of his actions by hiding their consequence is a poor policy. Of the available options listed in the alert, only 'otherwise inappropriate' seems to apply and I feel that within context the image is appropriate. A case might be made for 'insensitive', but again I would err on the side of informing the reader rather than hiding the consequences of dog fighting. Were there a mechanism for warning the reader and requiring a click to show the image, I might support the suggestion that it be used.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: At first I was going to leave it, so people could see the consequences of his actions, but thinking of pet lovers here, I'm voting to hide.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Well, thank you for whoever alerted.

It was worth a try. I didn't Alert because I would have had to look at the picture longer. That is the honest-to-goddess reason.