[boxed]

It was your fault for not putting on a helmet and allowing me to hit you with a steel pipe and take your money.

See the problem? There's a reason it's illegal to exploit vulnerabilities in software. It's even illegal to exploit them in humans (mostly). It's called fraud.

[DeWilde]

In a world where there are people that will hit you with a steel pipe and will not be stopped by the legality of the matter then it is your fault for not putting on the helmet.

But that isn't a good comparison for this case as what he did was not illegal. Unlike hitting people with steel pipes.

[drekk]

I appreciate the honesty and consistency at least of doubling down on blaming the victim.

Our pipe-wielding example will just find another victim without a helmet. You can always find something a victim could have done differently, the only common thread is the perpetrator.

Also legality isn't a proxy for morality. Slavery was illegal. Some societies allowed cannibalism. What Soros did had a human cost and the fact someone else might have done the same financial alchemy had he not doesn't excuse it.

[colinmhayes]

The UK central bank was actively harming their economy with this nonsensical peg. Comparing trading an obviously overvalued currency to hitting someone with a pipe is similarly nonsensical. The government was not the victim here, but the perpetrator of the crime. Soros forced them to stop before the central bank could cause even more damage.

[DeWilde]

I never made a case for legality == morality. Also beware that morality isn't equally defined, what you find moral others will find amoral.

As for the pipe and helmet example. The laws and ways of upholding them are the metaphorical helmet that we put on to protect ourselves against pipe wielders.

The perpetrator will do what it wants to do, we can protect ourselves with laws, law enforcement, education or physical armour. Or do you expect the pipe wielder to stop because they were told what they are doing is bad or amoral?