Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Huge, post: 3163533, member: 1992"] I'm well aware the integrity unit heard him but I didn't. At best I could be reasonably sure that what they reported was accurate. Reasonably sure but not certain. Before I can react appropriately to a report I'd need to be certain it was accurate. I have no such certainty. I haven't seen the integrity units report, all I or anyone has is their(the media)version of it. The sensationalist view, that's the one I've heard. I reserve my outrage for that which I KNOW with certainty to be accurate. I don't fly into a rage over the unreliable testimony of the media who we all acknowledge is there to generate heat, generate clicks. Common sense should dictate to us all that we don't have access to the evidence, we only have access to anothers interpretation of the evidence. If it's enough for you all that's fine, I cannot make the hoi polloi use critical thinking to assess a thing. No one has ever managed to do that. It's why we give that job to those we know will use said skills. I could produce a thought exercise about absolute certainty. What standard of evidence would you need if it was your life on the line, your child or loved one's lives? Of course some of you will run off on some tangent away from the point of the thought exercise. My point is simple enough though. Why would anyone declare certainty about a thing if they know they weren't there, didn't hear it themselves and only had anecdotal evidence from an unreliable source with an agenda by which to judge the merits of a case? Simples. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now