Can jpegs be haunted /x/?

>>19441438
Probably not, but I don't know.

File: 1502628359069.jpg (150KB, 506x481px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 506x481px

>>19441438
Legend has it that this image is haunted.
Heard it was an upclose shot of a young child as he died, his soul leaving his body.
>pic related

is it okay to laugh at haunted pictures?

>>19441518
It is frowned upon and will get you stoned to death in Saudi Arabia

if ghosts are real they should have no problem haunting a digital energy like an image file

>>19441438
Absolutely

No only if you emotionally convinced by someone or your self you can Trick your self

>>19441899
A lot of things will get you stoned to death in Saudi Arabia buddy

>>19441438

The thing is, the file is not tangible except for the format and bytecode. There does not suffice to show a premises for an object which can be subject to a quality in the past participle. Therefore, your computer may become haunted, but the jpeg itself is a haunt: similar to how images can have embedded malware: the file is a vector for offensive material, but does not have meaning except in the context where it is normally used.

Philosophically, a jpeg cannot be haunted, but it can host a haunt- and thusly be a haunting. Your computer becomes haunted.

This ontology describes psychomimesis as caused by digital images. Spoopy pics deserve a new epistemology to reference the subjective effects.

Idk about haunted (more likely than not) but for sure someone can create a cursed image or video. It's not that hard and they are probably more common than not. Ever seen a pic that gives you the heebie jeebies? Prob cursed my dude

>>19444911
LE DONUT MAN SCREAMER!

File: 03055910.jpg (2MB, 3532x2728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3532x2728px

>>19441438
Only some of them, like the one I am posting.

>>19441438
yes

>>19444911
DONUT OPEN!