LogFAQs > #890900611

Alright I mean I can buy that. Moore is a prominent political figure so you (and frankly, I) already had some suspicions going in so you could've pre-emptively done some research. He's not really a great example here, but was the most clear example of something to gain.

Let's go with a different one that I had some interest in, Charlie Rose.

How much reading have you done into that case?
What do you know about the accusers?
What do you know about Charlie Rose?

Let's hypothetically say that Charlie Rose wasn't a predator as much as an asshole to his employees-- which the stories will actually support as well. Let's observe that these women coming forward no longer work for him. Is it possible they wanted to tear the guy down because they just got in a mood, or that he caused some damage to their careers, or whatever else?

Maybe.

The sniff test as you describe it in this case, it's impossible to trigger unless you were already a big follower of Charlie Rose, because it takes digging to even find a reason to trigger it. But does the necessity for digging mean that it's not there?

That's kinda where it starts to come apart. There should always be a compulsion to dig. We shouldn't assume someone is lying, but we also shouldn't assume they're telling the truth because they have "nothing to gain" because inherently to know if there's something to gain you often need to dig.
---

No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!