WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[Charlaquin]

This is false as I believe neither of those things. I have yet to be presented with evidence of her claims or evidence that she lied.

Admitting to not knowing something due to lack of data is not a sin.

Who said anything about sin?

I suspect you are equating disbelief in a claim with the belief the claim is false, but this is not so.

That’s literally what disbelief means.

Perhaps for you it is, but that does not apply to everyone.

Ok, we’re not going to get anywhere.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hills account is not quite what you're portraying it to be. She's not saying she knows or has confirmation of any kind that's what happened. She speculated. You're acting like doubting her speculation would be doubting her word but that's not how Hill put it herself so why are you twisting it to be different than what she actually said. She made an educated guess as to what happened, Mearls is not allowed to respond, nobody include Hill is sure what happened. You can certainly decide on your own to believe that Hill's speculation as to what happened but why are you walking around using it like a club as if it were some claim of hard evidence when that's never been Hill's claim to begin with?

I have made no claim of hard evidence. Indeed, I concede that there is no hard evidence, and accordingly it wouldn’t be appropriate to mete out some kind of punishment to Mearls. I am only saying I believe Hill, and it’s weird that people keep tripping over themselves trying to point out that there’s no hard evidence when no one is arguing to the contrary.

 

[Andvari]

That’s literally what disbelief means.

It is not. I am perfectly comfortable admitting not being able to evaluate the truthfulness of a claim. Regardless of the wording with which you would prefer it expressed, I am able (as is anyone, potentially) to not believe a person’s claim while simultaneously not believe they are lying (or honestly mistaken) and without holding a contradictory belief.

Ok, we’re not going to get anywhere.

Perhaps not, but I think it some effort is warranted.

Edit: It may be “unbelief” is the term I should use rather than “disbelief.” Forgive my failure in expressing myself if that is the case. My point stands, however.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is not. I am perfectly comfortable admitting not being able to evaluate the truthfulness of a claim.

Again, this is not the issue. As there is no evidence, no one can evaluate the truthfulness. We can only trust or distrust.

Regardless of the wording with which you would prefer it expressed, I am able (as is anyone, potentially) to not believe a person’s claim while simultaneously not believe they are lying (or honestly mistaken) and without holding a contradictory belief.

That’s just not accurate. If you don’t believe something is true, your belief is necessarily that the thing is untrue.

 

[Andvari]

That’s just not accurate. If you don’t believe something is true, your belief is necessarily that the thing is untrue.

You already have at least one example of a person who is neither convinced of the claim or that the claim is a lie. How do you explain that?

 

[Charlaquin]

You already have at least one example of a person who is neither convinced of the claim or that the claim is a lie. How do you explain that?

They don’t believe it’s true, but they don’t want to stand behind that opinion, because directly calling someone a liar without cause is generally not a very socially acceptable thing to do.

 

[Andvari]

They don’t believe it’s true, but they don’t want to stand behind that opinion, because directly calling someone a liar without cause is generally not a very socially acceptable thing to do.

Is this your way of saying you think my real belief is that she is lying and I just don’t have the guts to admit it?

 

[Charlaquin]

Is this your way of saying you think my real belief is that she is lying and I just don’t have the guts to admit it?

Not as such, no. That would suggest an act of willful deception on your part, which I’m not inclined to assume. But you clearly disbelieve her, but are uncomfortable with the implication (that she must be lying for that disbelief to be accurate). So, you use skepticism to resolve that cognitive dissonance.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

I have made no claim of hard evidence. Indeed, I concede that there is no hard evidence, and accordingly it wouldn’t be appropriate to mete out some kind of punishment to Mearls. I am only saying I believe Hill, and it’s weird that people keep tripping over themselves trying to point out that there’s no hard evidence when no one is arguing to the contrary.

First off, if by your admission Hill was speculating about what Mearls did, then it isn't simply a matter of "believing" Hill or not. Hill can honestly believe something that is actually false. People are often mistaken about things. Anyway, you are doing more than merely stating your belief that Hill is telling the truth, you are insisting that everyone must take sides despite not having enough facts to make an informed judgment. You are actually saying that if a person acknowledges they don't know what happened then they believe the accuser is lying. This is absolutely false.

If I were to pick out a totally random court case involving people you have never heard of and you know nothing of the circumstances of the case, only the charges filed, and I ask you if the accused really did do the crime, you seriously think you must answer either "Yes" or "No"? You really don't think that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer? Is saying "I don't know" really a statement that the accuser is lying? That doesn't make any sense. It could just as easily be argued that if a person says they don't know what happened that this means they think the accused are lying about being innocent. The logic works both ways.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]