4 ms·
What you're basically saying is, to stay with the arsonist metaphor, that if an arsonist burns a house down to the ground he should be prosecuted but if he burn
by mixmax 16y ago
What you're basically saying is, to stay with the arsonist metaphor, that if an arsonist burns a house down to the ground he should be prosecuted but if he burns down the whole village it's as much the villages fault as it is the arsonists - they should have fireproofed the thing.
I strongly disagree. Crackers should be prosecuted, whether they had an easy job or not.
- stcredzero 16y agoTo complete your metaphor, the village government would've had to have provided all of the building materials, which would've all turned out to be highly flammable. So yes, prosecute the crackers, but Gawker is to be faulted for poor practices here as well.
- Xk 16y agoI am not disagreeing. I believe these crackers should serve jail time just as much as you do. I am just stating that I do not lift blame from Gawkers.
- hugh3 16y agoSo it's the old short-skirt-leads-to-rape argument again? On one hand, rape is entirely the fault of the rapist. On the other hand, it's still not a good idea to walk alone down a dodgy alley late at night wearing a short skirt or to go back to Julian Assange's hotel room. Discussing one point shouldn't detract from the other.
- jlcgull 16y agoSo it's the old short-skirt-leads-to-rape argument again? On one hand, rape is entirely the fault of the rapist. On the other hand, it's still not a good idea to walk alone down a dodgy alley late at night wearing a short skirt or to go back to hugh3's hotel room. Discussing one point shouldn't detract from the other. Ahem, just correcting your assumption.
- Xk 16y agoNo, I'm not trying to argue that at all. That case is entirely the rapist's fault. The difference I am trying to make is people have trusted (maybe wrongly) Gawker to protect their information. Gawker failed to do so.