Thanks for explaining. I agree that there is a distinction between "cause" and "fault" as you describe. Gorbzel's comment is pretty blunt: for sake of argumen

Thanks for explaining. I agree that there is a distinction between "cause" and "fault" as you describe. Gorbzel's comment is pretty blunt: for sake of argument, it basically amounts to "[Victim] is an idiot and should have known better, for his own sake". But to me it is very clearly an assignment of "cause" not "fault" in your terminology. I understand this from phrases such as "for […] his own well-being" and "to his own detriment", as well as the fact that it's phrased as "advice". These make clear that Gorbzel is saying that the victim erred from a self-interest point of view not a moral point of view.