The following security requirements have been copied from two 2010 popular home insurance company’s schedules, not their policy documents

The article goes on to explain that in some cases you can get certain discounts by meeting certain security criteria. This webpage does not confirm that a homeowner is held legally liable for items taken from their home if it is not locked.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=486271

There a couple people that were robbed with unlocked doors that got full payouts from insurance commenting in that thread.

But let's say for the sake of argument that some claims are denied or reduced due to a lack of locked doors.. that still doesn't make your claim "There is nothing wrong with victim-blaming" accurate... because.. as I've already said.. all you want to do is poorly debate hypothetical examples rather than see the big picture.

"Reasonable Caution" is subjective.

Victim blaming can be wrong because the person blaming the victim may have a different opinion on what is reasonable caution and what isn't.

Someone drowns while swimming... well, you wouldn't have drowned if you didn't swim. Their fault.

Someone gets killed in a car accident while driving in a rainstorm... well, you wouldn't have gotten killed if you didn't drive while it was raining.

Someone is robbed at gunpoint because they are outdoors. Well, you wouldn't have been robbed if you stayed inside and barricaded yourself in a panic room 24/7 for the rest of your life.

100+ comments in and you can't see it... meaning you're either trolling or you're incapable of seeing it.

Victim blaming can and often is wrong. Sometimes though, we are overly sensitive to victim blaming when it is completely justified. You are trying to make a nuanced topic black/white.

/ignore

You aren't using this subreddit for it's purpose.. you just want to argue nonsense.