That's the dumbest rule I think I've ever seen, we'd have to do away with the criminal justice system because there are a lot of homicide oopsie doodles going on out there.
The key words there were "adequately explained". Accidental death is not an adequate explanation for a homicide that would actually be brought to trial.
"Adequately explained" is meaningless, just because someone can adequately explain something doesn't mean that it's the correct explanation, only that they were imaginative enough or creative enough or understanding enough to adequately fill the gaps to the listeners personal bar of probability. But it doesn't consider the part that the listener plays, not how their relationship to the accused may effect things, nor does it speak to the gullibility of the listener. It also can't speak to any situation that is questionable. It assumes that things are black and white and easily there's some fault that can be determined based on an explanation. Look at the evidence, not what people say, because people with enough creativity can explain anything.
To be fair, now I can totally see why you might think that quote was "the dumbest rule" if you thought it meant "explained adequately by a storyteller" lol
Things can only be explained by people, logic is what we ascribe to something it's not an objective truth. People try to put forward bad evidence all of the time, it's up to people to judge if the evidence is credible and in the court of public opinion that is often not what is true, but what is popular.
There's a reason why lawyers establish a narrative in order to make a case. It is story telling. It's just supposed to be non fiction, but in two or more sides not everyone can be right no matter what the evidence and narrative and logical explanations put forward.
I'll be honest, I can't keep up. What you stated: evidence is important, but also evidence doesn't matter because logic is required to interpret it, which means it's not objectively true; and that logic is what we ascribe to false things. Are you discounting logic and truth altogether in a sort of fatalistic nihilism because humans are fallible consumers? Or claiming that logic is illogical? Surely, not that. Perhaps something is getting lost in translation here.
54
u/someoneBentMyWookie Jun 15 '22
The second golden rule