Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Holy hell, I'm going to see if I can make this simple for you. You seem to be arguing that these celebrities took an unnecessary risk for the purposes of entertainment/intimacy that ended with a negative result, therefore they are partially to blame. Do you realize how insane that sounds when applied to virtually every recreational activity in life? I was playing soccer a couple of months ago and ended up with a concussion, after getting elbowed in the head by some dirty, cheap, piece of crap. Now, to me it's obvious who is to blame here. However, by your logic, if I didn't want a concussion, I shouldn't have been playing soccer.
|
Here's the thing; your analogy is shortsighted. Intelligent people learn from the actions of others and the risk of getting a concussion in soccer is not the same as getting your phone hacked if you're a celebrity.
Time and time again it has happened to celebrities, this isn't new so your analogy is illogical. It's proven to be high risk taking images on phones, if this was the first time it had happened you would have an argument but it's not. That's the difference and the reason why all these analogies are so awful. It's not an unforeseeable accident and claiming victim blaming when reality has proven the risk over and over is false. They aren't to blame but they should recognise that phones are not secure at all. As it is all you really have is irrational analogies and personal attacks. I'm saying they took a risk not thinking it was one, the by your logic argument is false and just way off base