[lo_zamoyski]

Wow, that's rude. He said something wrong.

It's important that we avoid the twin extremes of, on the one hand, categorically blaming circumstance for everything, and on the other hand, categorically assuming 100% culpability. The proper view is that human beings operate at a nexus between circumstance and decision. Circumstances can create good or bad incentives, and statistically, people will follow incentives (hence the need to legislate properly, for example). These incentives can be strong or weak. They can create more or less pressure to follow through with the incentive. But we must ultimately make a choice and that rests with us (in the extreme case, something like extreme pain can blind a person and effectively rob him of the freedom to choose intentionally which is to say with the capacity to use reason). So how culpable we are for a decision varies on a variety of factors, but there is almost always some culpability.

In the case of your parent comment, it sounds like the person in question is very culpable, that he had the capacity to reason, to know he should have chosen otherwise, but did not. There's nothing wrong with the content of that claim as such.