4 ms·
Maybe we disagree on what "fault" means; I think (and I'm pretty sure this is common usage) that if a person takes an action and a predictable bad outcome ensue
by pseut 14y ago
Maybe we disagree on what "fault" means; I think (and I'm pretty sure this is common usage) that if a person takes an action and a predictable bad outcome ensues, that person's at fault. It doesn't make him or her a bad person.
One last example: if you leave the laptop on an open windowsill and it falls out and breaks, is it now gravity's fault? If I throw it up in the air and fail to catch it, am I at fault, or is gravity? If I throw it and want the laptop to break so I don't catch it? Does it really depend on whether I want the laptop to break or not? What if I'm unsure of my motivations?
edit: I hope it's obvious, but multiple people can be "at fault" and the person who stole the bitcoins is more "at fault" than the victim here.
- burntsushi 14y ago> edit: I hope it's obvious, but multiple people can be "at fault" and the person who stole the bitcoins is more "at fault" than the victim here. Of course. The initial point I was trying to rebuke was > what happened is your own fault entirely Which isn't just a slip of the tongue. It's an explicit declaration that the blame is 100% on the victim.
- pseut 14y ago>> what happened is your own fault entirely >Which isn't just a slip of the tongue. It's an explicit declaration that the blame is 100% on the victim. Not my quote, and not even implicit in anything I've said here.