Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R
I think people need to remember that we're not in a court of law here. We're not looking to convict anybody of anything, so there's no absolute presumption of innocence. People are just trying to ascertain what most likely occurred here given how this story has evolved over time.
Determining what most likely occurred isn't just a matter of "hard evidence". You don't always have "hard evidence" to work with, but rather just a timeline and a series of clues, events, reports, etc... that you need to piece together to try to figure out what most likely happened. And when doing that, it's important to keep human nature in mind and not just presume that everybody is being entirely honest.
Let's just say that I very much doubt that Hyouka's Oreki Houtarou, if told by Chitanda that she was curious about this incident, would come to the conclusion that nobody involved in this had ill-intent.
Yeah, I agree with all of this. Whoever masterminded this is the person most at fault, for sure.
I think there's plenty of innocent people in this, but I really don't think that everybody involved in this is innocent.
Just to be clear, I'm not continuing this debate out of some hope of determining who the mastermind is. But I don't want this to be viewed as just a misunderstanding, because I honestly think Ichika deserves better than that (even if he himself was pressured into covering for the Kokoro Connect Production Committee).
|
^Now this is something I can agree with. There's no presumption of innocence, but we each have different standards of proof that we implicitly require in order to believe something, and there is no one standard that is universally accepted as being correct. It's precisely because we aren't in a court of law and are thus not bound by any statutes concerning evidence law, which is why it is perfectly reasonable, even probable, that we can look at the same set of events and draw different conclusions regarding what happened.
What I took offence to was the previous poster's baseless accusation that I was simply arguing for the sake of arguing and his incorrect claim that I was ignoring everyone else's arguments, when all it came down to was different standards.