"
I would say this is one instance where victim blaming is adequate...(I dont think there is a single "rule" that stands true for every situation and even victim-blaming as wrong is no exception)
People who exploit others in this kind of situation are hardly to blame... even if it is repreensible on moral perspective and they are ideed taking advantage of a situation, it is ultimately still a situation that they neither created, nor they are perpetuating it. Its hardly different than alcohool or most addictions, really, even if its morally dubious that the tobaco ou alcohol industry exists, its still ultimately the users fault for indulging in a self-destructive escape mechanism
Yeah, i know its easy for me to say when im not the one suffering from it, but in the end, it was their choice to hop into it. Circunstances around it might explain the choice, but dont exempt them from responsability from those choices, we all are to blame for bad decisions we made, especially when the negative consequences are plain(you could say that people were not at fault when they decided to smoke back on the days the info about the health impacts was not there, but you cant say the same thing today. Indulging in excessive gaming is no different. Spending more than you can afford and general impulsive spending is entirely on the "victim")
Not in the same degree. As in the case of a scammer and its victim, I would put at 80% and 20%. The victim is at fault for his naivety but the scammer is repulsively malicious. We don't have the same degree of animosity toward the victim.
Last edited by awesome999 on Sep 24, 2022, 3:53:03 AM
|
Posted byawesome999on Sep 24, 2022, 3:49:43 AM
|
|
play stupid games win stupid prizes? XD
|
Posted bygrybranixon Oct 18, 2022, 7:31:27 PM
|
