4 ms·

Suggesting caution is not automatically saying everyone who didn't take that advice derserves what happened to them. Saying "you should wear your seatbelt" is n

Suggesting caution is not automatically saying everyone who didn't take that advice derserves what happened to them. Saying "you should wear your seatbelt" is not the same as "you deserve to get maimed or killed if you don't wear your seatbelt". Similarly, saying "don't put identifiable info on forums" is not the same as saying "if you put PII on a public forum you deserve to get stalked".

ceejayoz 8y ago
IMO, you're making the mistake of thinking fault and "deserve" are the same thing. A smoker who gets lung cancer doesn't deserve the pain and suffering, but you can make a good argument they're at least partially at fault for it. "People should dress conservatively so they don't get raped" doesn't say they deserved to get raped, but it does blame them to some extent for what happened by implying some of it is their fault.
- manfredo 8y ago
  This line of thinking doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. If I say "wear a helmet when you ride a bike" it is entirely possible that an ensuing accident is entirely the fault of another party (e.g. getting cut off by a car). Nonetheless, the rider's injuries will depend greatly on whether or not the advice was followed. But the fault in either case is entirely that of the driver that caused the accident.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    I think it's a mistake to compare an accident and an intentional criminal act like that. If you get run down intentionally by someone in a car while biking, and the first thing I say is "well, you should've worn a helmet", you're going to correctly call me a douchebag.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Sure. But pointing to this as an example of why someone should wear a helmet even if they're confident in their riding ability is not in any way shifting blame to the rider. Nobody is actually trying to tell the security expert in this story that he should be more careful - he's dead. People in this thread are pointing out how this story highlights the importance of safe internet usage practices - much akin to how one might point to a car collision as a reason to use a helmet. That is not blaming the victim, that's encouraging others to learn from and hopefully prevent similar situations.
- seiferteric 8y ago
  I don't really get our reasoning. Clearly some people don't act rationally and everyone should be aware of that. So it seems reasonable to recommend reasonable precautions if the situation warrants it? You don't swim in shark infested waters, or hang out around lions without expecting to be bit. Would be nice if everyone could behave like a sane person and we could live without fear, but we don't live in a utopia.

ceejayoz 8y ago

IMO, you're making the mistake of thinking fault and "deserve" are the same thing. A smoker who gets lung cancer doesn't deserve the pain and suffering, but you can make a good argument they're at least partially at fault for it. "People should dress conservatively so they don't get raped" doesn't say they deserved to get raped, but it does blame them to some extent for what happened by implying some of it is their fault.

manfredo 8y ago
This line of thinking doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. If I say "wear a helmet when you ride a bike" it is entirely possible that an ensuing accident is entirely the fault of another party (e.g. getting cut off by a car). Nonetheless, the rider's injuries will depend greatly on whether or not the advice was followed. But the fault in either case is entirely that of the driver that caused the accident.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  I think it's a mistake to compare an accident and an intentional criminal act like that. If you get run down intentionally by someone in a car while biking, and the first thing I say is "well, you should've worn a helmet", you're going to correctly call me a douchebag.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Sure. But pointing to this as an example of why someone should wear a helmet even if they're confident in their riding ability is not in any way shifting blame to the rider. Nobody is actually trying to tell the security expert in this story that he should be more careful - he's dead. People in this thread are pointing out how this story highlights the importance of safe internet usage practices - much akin to how one might point to a car collision as a reason to use a helmet. That is not blaming the victim, that's encouraging others to learn from and hopefully prevent similar situations.
seiferteric 8y ago
I don't really get our reasoning. Clearly some people don't act rationally and everyone should be aware of that. So it seems reasonable to recommend reasonable precautions if the situation warrants it? You don't swim in shark infested waters, or hang out around lions without expecting to be bit. Would be nice if everyone could behave like a sane person and we could live without fear, but we don't live in a utopia.