> But according to the parent comment, guilty until proven innocent
Where did I state something even remotely close to this?
Where did I state something even remotely close to this?
You're implying that we shouldn't take the story at face value OR that the author is being dishonest about his experience.
Then you say, "Meanwhile, the only video attached to the post is pixelated to the highest degree, and you certainly can't see facial features on it. Am I missing something here?"
A clear call for proof.
It seems that in your worldview, one either believes the author, or calls him a liar. But in real life, the third option is actually more optimal in majority of cases. This third option is doubt.
I'm merely pointing out that the original comment is automatically assuming that the author's story is untrue. And that the comment makes a clear call for more proof.
Of course I do, because this is the default attitude one should have when approaching such stories on the internet.
This whole story could be complete fiction that never took place from the beginning to the end, unless you actually make an effort to locate and probably contact (since I don't think they would bother to publish any involved materials) the officials and departments involved. Have you?
This web-page is literally the only source we have. How the hell are we supposed to trust it by default?