376
submitted 7 months ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Amelia_ 15 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Amelia_ 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

You didn't answer the question.

[-] Amelia_ 6 points 7 months ago

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.

Yes I did.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago

He did answer the question, you just didn't understand his answer.

[-] Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

Pretty clear by the fact they keep asking for further clarification. Why's everyone so afraid to try and engage further?

this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
376 points (100.0% liked)

World News

40061 readers
2605 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS