I don’t think anyone here is arguing in favour of a vessel “standing on” towards a stopped vessel. It’s pretty clear that both Rule 2 and Rule 17, as well as common sense, would call for altering course around them. That part is obvious.
The more interesting question is what rights and responsibilities may still attach to such a stopped vessel. Think of them as akin to legal concepts of “last clear chance” or “duty to mitigate”, where just because you’re the one being wronged, the damages you could claim may be reduced if you simply “let it happen” when you had a clear chance to mitigate them.