LogFAQs > #884236083

then what are they basing the comments on? right now it seems the best thing anyone would know is a one sided story of which the details are unknown. worst thing is they've been given a bunch of "somebody told me" type stories, which is hearsay. both ways, there's no way for anybody to determine what they've seen or heard and there's no way of knowing the validity of that. it's a black box right now and the specifics are so minimal that there's no way to know what's going on.

Jakyl25 posted...

You're applying court logic to human interaction IMO

no, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" isn't "court logic," it's human decency. if you are accused of something then it makes sense that some evidence would be presented. otherwise it should be treated with severe skepticism because there's literally nothing to work with there, it's a "he says, she says" type of game. only in this case we don't even have that, he hasn't said shit. as the phrase goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. that's called being fair, not court.

nobody is asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that's court logic.
they're asking for any evidence, any proof, any screencaps, first hand stories, anything to support the claims at all. and there aren't any two days later. now granted, it's the weekend so Vox won't do their investigation right now. if you're waiting for the third party arbiter, that's your focus. but nobody else has spoken up so it still makes far, far more sense to be a reasonable human and not damn him to hell until there's an actual reason to.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.