It’s their own fault if they didn’t take the reasonable precautions that anyone should be aware of when going in to business for profit.
Notice how in my original comment I added “through improper security” and “improper practices”.
If you are running a business and get robbed without security cameras, insurance, and other reasonable protective and preventative methods, then you are at fault.
Ehhh I dunno. Saying it’s the stores fault they got robbed feels wrong. It’s the robbers fault for, you know, robbing. I mean, how far does that go? They had locks but not good enough locks. Yeah they had locks but no security system. Well they had a security system but no guard. At some point the blame is on the person that actually committed the crime.
My point is that corporations cannot be victims because they’re not people, they’re a legal construct. They cannot be victims any more than a table can be a victim when I spill my drink over it. The term “victim”, whether intentional or not, is an emotive word that invokes ideas of injustice and suffering.
Marketing teams and corporate executives convinced people and legal systems that corporations are people in an attempt to engender sympathy, personification, and to avoid responsibility for their own failures, like the case in this article where managerial and procedural failures by those in charge led to the ability for this ex-employee to be able to do what he did.
You’re right, I wanted an answer to my question and instead you rephrased my question, which avoided my actual point, and then only kind of answered that question.
Let me try to rephrase to get to my point: this shop has security cameras, insurance, and other reasonable protective and preventative methods, they get robbed (which still result in a financial hit). Are they victims?
this shop has security cameras, insurance, and other reasonable protective and preventative methods, they get robbed (which still result in a financial hit). Are they victims?
Yes, just like if a company properly offboards their employees, they would be victims if a disgruntled employee hacked them in retaliation.
But that’s not what happened. This “shop” doesn’t have locks on the doors. It’s hard to feel bad for them when they left the door wide open.
corporations are not people, they are soulless, for-profit enterprises that will, for damn sure, abuse and exploit any one and any thing they can in the name of profit. They don’t get the defense of “victim blaming”.
So you agree with me that corporations can be victims, which is what I was originally responding to and you originally challenged.
You’re now saying that if proper precautions are not taken, you can’t be considered a victim.
This is classic victim blaming, which is my point. If I leave my wallet on the table at a bar and someone steals it, despite me being an idiot I’m still the victim of a crime. It’s not my fault, it’s the fault of the person who stole it.
Just like with the company in the OP, they are idiots for not taking proper precautions against malicious actors, but it’s still the fault of the malicious actor.
That’s cherry picking a single scenario which allows you to sort of maintain your position, but still doesn’t even answer the question in that particular case, and certainly does not answer the question as to whether that mom and pop shop can be a victim.
They replied elsewhere, that victim is a personifying trait and that applying it to inanimate objects makes no sense.
While corporations can be the victim of an attack in the technical sense, we wouldnt feel bad for the corporation because a corporation has no feelings that could be hurt, or any hopes that could be dashed, or whatever other reason someone might feel bad for a victim of something.
In the table example, the table is a victim of the spilled drink but that is a meaningless distinction because a table that is a victim is exactly the same as that same table when its not a victim.
You could say that the owner(s) of the business are the victims however, as they do have hopes and dreams and ambitions that are affected by these things. While you might still conclude the owners aren’t owed any sympathy, its for different reasons than a table would receive no sympathy.
Mom and pop grocery store - incorporated because they aren’t idiots - gets robbed. Not victims because they are a corporation?
It’s their own fault if they didn’t take the reasonable precautions that anyone should be aware of when going in to business for profit.
Notice how in my original comment I added “through improper security” and “improper practices”.
If you are running a business and get robbed without security cameras, insurance, and other reasonable protective and preventative methods, then you are at fault.
Ehhh I dunno. Saying it’s the stores fault they got robbed feels wrong. It’s the robbers fault for, you know, robbing. I mean, how far does that go? They had locks but not good enough locks. Yeah they had locks but no security system. Well they had a security system but no guard. At some point the blame is on the person that actually committed the crime.
My point is that corporations cannot be victims because they’re not people, they’re a legal construct. They cannot be victims any more than a table can be a victim when I spill my drink over it. The term “victim”, whether intentional or not, is an emotive word that invokes ideas of injustice and suffering.
Marketing teams and corporate executives convinced people and legal systems that corporations are people in an attempt to engender sympathy, personification, and to avoid responsibility for their own failures, like the case in this article where managerial and procedural failures by those in charge led to the ability for this ex-employee to be able to do what he did.
You didn’t answer the question.
No, you just didn’t get the answer you wanted.
You’re right, I wanted an answer to my question and instead you rephrased my question, which avoided my actual point, and then only kind of answered that question.
Let me try to rephrase to get to my point: this shop has security cameras, insurance, and other reasonable protective and preventative methods, they get robbed (which still result in a financial hit). Are they victims?
Another user to the pile here to say that their response fully answered your question.
I don’t see it. So please explain. Can they be a victim?
Sorry, you’re going to have to keep looking. Somehow, everyone else got the answer to your question.
It’s obvious who is confident in defending their position and who is not.
No I didn’t.
Yes, just like if a company properly offboards their employees, they would be victims if a disgruntled employee hacked them in retaliation.
But that’s not what happened. This “shop” doesn’t have locks on the doors. It’s hard to feel bad for them when they left the door wide open.
So you agree with me that corporations can be victims, which is what I was originally responding to and you originally challenged.
You’re now saying that if proper precautions are not taken, you can’t be considered a victim.
This is classic victim blaming, which is my point. If I leave my wallet on the table at a bar and someone steals it, despite me being an idiot I’m still the victim of a crime. It’s not my fault, it’s the fault of the person who stole it.
Just like with the company in the OP, they are idiots for not taking proper precautions against malicious actors, but it’s still the fault of the malicious actor.
That user that tagged you as “purposeful idiot” was fucking spot on.
Make up quotes, call me an idiot based on them not making any sense. Classic.
Yes I did.
Removed by mod
That’s cherry picking a single scenario which allows you to sort of maintain your position, but still doesn’t even answer the question in that particular case, and certainly does not answer the question as to whether that mom and pop shop can be a victim.
They replied elsewhere, that victim is a personifying trait and that applying it to inanimate objects makes no sense.
While corporations can be the victim of an attack in the technical sense, we wouldnt feel bad for the corporation because a corporation has no feelings that could be hurt, or any hopes that could be dashed, or whatever other reason someone might feel bad for a victim of something.
In the table example, the table is a victim of the spilled drink but that is a meaningless distinction because a table that is a victim is exactly the same as that same table when its not a victim.
You could say that the owner(s) of the business are the victims however, as they do have hopes and dreams and ambitions that are affected by these things. While you might still conclude the owners aren’t owed any sympathy, its for different reasons than a table would receive no sympathy.
He did answer the question, you just didn’t understand his answer.
Pretty clear by the fact they keep asking for further clarification. Why’s everyone so afraid to try and engage further?