My point is mostly that it shouldn't be used to argue against increased security for that mode of transportation.
The pattern is as follows:
- A: I had a really bad accident, we should make these vehicles more secure.
- B: No, you had to be aware that it was risky.
- A: Stripe jeopardized our business, they really should have better customer support for these cases.
- B: No, you had to be aware it was risky to use them.
It's a non-sequitur: the plight for increased security/customer support is in no way hampered by the fact that the buyer had to be aware of the risk (which I guess he had, but ... so what?).
The pattern is as follows:
- A: I had a really bad accident, we should make these vehicles more secure. - B: No, you had to be aware that it was risky.
- A: Stripe jeopardized our business, they really should have better customer support for these cases. - B: No, you had to be aware it was risky to use them.
It's a non-sequitur: the plight for increased security/customer support is in no way hampered by the fact that the buyer had to be aware of the risk (which I guess he had, but ... so what?).