Tompson - Putting out my deactivated facebook account in skype

[Acerblock]

I'm aware of that. You are saying, however, that it's Maxx's fault that Tompson is a jerk.

No, I'm not, but it's maxx's fault that he posted his own information. If he didn't, Tompson couldn't have done this. Also,

"sorry"
ITS OK
XOXOXOXOXXOXO

thx bby

[Ad Bot]

[Wynd_Fox]

So Maxx could've prevented this. He still didn't do it. He didn't force Tompson to do it. It's not his fault.

[Acerblock]

So Maxx could've prevented this. He still didn't do it. He didn't force Tompson to do it. It's not his fault.

What- yes it is!

You literally said it in your post, Maxx could have prevented it.

It doesn't matter if he caused it, it's his fault that he posted his information which Tompson could easily retrieve.

[Wynd_Fox]

Being able to prevent something is very different than causing it. To be at fault is to have been, at least partially, the cause of something.

[Acerblock]

Being able to prevent something is very different than causing it. To be at fault is to have been, at least partially, the cause of something.

not really. You can still at fault for something that you didn't directly cause.

[Wynd_Fox]

He didn't indirectly cause it, either. He allowed it to happen, but it was still entirely up to Tompson. Please look up "victim blaming," as I'm sure someone else has explained this better than me.

[Acerblock]

He didn't indirectly cause it, either. He allowed it to happen, but it was still entirely up to Tompson. Please look up "victim blaming," as I'm sure someone else has explained this better than me.

EXACTLY my point. He allowed it to happen therefore it is partially his fault.

[Jaxx]

hey, does anyone still have that user block script from a while back

[Wynd_Fox]

EXACTLY my point. He allowed it to happen therefore it is partially his fault.

But I just said it's not his fault, so we disagree on what "fault" is, I guess.

[Acerblock]

But I just said it's not his fault, so we disagree on what "fault" is, I guess.

Ok, incoming brown townogy alert. I apologize if it's horrible, I haven't posted one before.

Take, for example, an insane guy wanting to burn down a building. He asks around for a lighter, but everyone knows he is crazy and gets away from him. However, one guy gives him the necessary tools to start a fire and the pyro burns down a building. It's not only the maniac's fault for committing a horrible crime, it's also the other guy's fault for giving him the items to be able to carry out the fire.

[Wynd_Fox]

I don't think that's the same because in that case, the man is simply helping the arsonist and so he is at fault. It's more like, I think, keeping thirty dollars in your pocket. It's not obvious, but if someone looks in your pocket, they'll see it. You don't need the cash, you have a credit card. It's just a little more convenient. Someone steals it.

[Wynd_Fox]

Oopsy, I forgot to finish my thought.

Is it your fault that your cash was stolen?

[Acerblock]

First of all, it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, it's your fault if you help the crime.

Second, I don't think that brown townogy fits this case. Call me crazy, but it's not like you are flaunting your cash in your hand, shouting at people to steal like. Putting money in your pocket is like keeping your info hidden on Facebook. You are keeping it safe from stranger and then if someone steals it, it's their fault.

If you are putting info public on Facebook, it's like flinging your money in your hand out in the open. If someone stole it, it's partially your fault since you are showing it to people and not keeping it out of view.

I hope that explains my point.

[Wynd_Fox]

I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not." I don't think I was talking about that at all.

Second, this is where we disagree. I doubt I can convince you that you're wrong, and I know you can't convince me. Wikipedia might be able, though.

[Acerblock]

I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not." I don't think I was talking about that at all.

Second, this is where we disagree. I doubt I can convince you that you're wrong, and I know you can't convince me. Wikipedia might be able, though.

Yeah, my first point was invalid.

But, I seriously don't see how I can't explain my point.

Bottom line, Maxx gave Thompson access to his information by setting it public and Thompson posted it.

Both are at fault.