Unless the defense can cast a reasonable doubt on the veracity of said evidence, which IMO has happened with this case. Somebody created an account just to harass a person whose honesty has come into question before, and they just so happened to do it less than 5 minutes before someone who wasn't logged in and didn't do an actual search somehow found the user page? For me, that's enough to say that the "evidence" presented is not strong enough for a conviction, and would require supplemental exhibits.

When your argument predicates social interaction on generic "trust," that very much is what you're saying.

OK, so the woman in question has been called out previously for making dubious and outright dishonest statements.

Also, the men who trusted Jeffrey Dahmer died before (or rather, as) he could prove himself otherwise.

  "Don't assume to know a man's heart until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

You realize you just contradicted yourself here, right? If trust is a binary decision, than the statement "Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time." would be invalid, since it implies degrees of trust rather than a "yes/no" configuration.

Well at least you accept that. Now we just have to work out the details.

but you've given me no reason to distrust you on certain things.

Equally, I've given you no reason to trust me. I could be a pathological liar, or I could be incapable of dishonesty. You have no way of knowing for sure. So wouldn't it make more sense to default to the side of caution and assume that I am not particularly trustworthy?

Do you pick up hitch-hikers? Why not, don't you trust them?

And if I was a person on the street you'd never met before, and I asked you the same question (but with Dollars, obviously), would you be so readily willing to trust that I'm not going to steal that money?

Or maybe I offered to sell you something on Craigslist, and have you come meet me at a place of my choosing. Would you think it a bad idea to assume that there's a chance I have ill intent? Because people get robbed/murdered in similar scams quite often these days.

Well, the concept is that you start the game naked with nothing but a rock, and when you get killed you lose all your gear and have to start over. I haven't played either, but apparently the people who do have developed a culture that many are saying is inherently sociopathic - activities like torture, backstabbing, and senseless murder are the norm rather than the outliers.

Yes.

Yet, that's not how the majority of people choose to play. Sure, you'll get your little enclaves of people who are Steam friends or some such, but generally speaking, on a server where no-one knows anyone, it's essentially a murderous free-for-all. To me that says something about human nature... something most people would probably prefer to assume doesn't happen.

Sounds like a good way to get murdered... or raped then murdered, if you're a woman. You may think that's ridiculous, but people gaining unauthorized access by feigning need is far from unheard of.

I would handle that situation by offering to call an ambulance, or at the very least having a buddy help me "stabilize the patient" while I dressed the wound.

This time, lol.

OK, so go ahead and post your banking access information in response, you know, since "Trust is the very center of society and civilization."

Yea, because I'm not an obsessive little prick. See, some people have more going on in their lives than what they post on Slashdot, so we tend to not bother remembering unimportant comments we made on unimportant subjects to unimportant people.

Coming from you, that's really funny. Enjoy your fantasy world where you're infallible and anyone who disagrees with your holy edicts are just dumb chumps. Me, I've got more important things to do.

Number one, there's nothing "epic" about my post.

Number two, you apparently parsed it wrong. But I'll cut you some slack, since sarcasm can be hard to infer in text posts.

Number three, upon consideration of the evidence (screenshot) presented, I now find the initial claim dubious, and have since retracted my earlier stance on the matter.

No, she's providing a claim of harassment, but as has been pointed out by others, she has also been caught misrepresenting herself in the past, and the details of this new "evidence" appear to take credibility away from her claims, rather than enforce them (namely how, in the screenshot, you can see it was taken by a user not logged in, and that the account in question was created less than 5 minutes before the screenshot was taken).

If this were a courtroom, she would be the plaintiff (because she's the one making an accusation of harassment), and thus would be required to provide the supporting documentation that gives her claimed evidence credibility.

They don't have to - burden of proof goes to the accuser, and as mentioned earlier, she is the one who is actually making an accusation here.

I prefer a system where the evidence is thoroughly investigated, especially if it's weak, rather than just defaulting judgement to whoever makes the most convincing case but can't actually prove their claims.

Why do people assume complete trust is required for social interaction?

Yes, it would be.

No, it's not.

OK, so what's your banking access information? What, don't you trust me (and the rest of the Slashdot community)?

Do you really? You assume he's not going to, because he's not driving like that's his intention. But say the guy in traffic is driving erratically, swerving between lanes, and being belligerent. Do you trust him to not do anything that could damage your vehicle and/or harm you?

Or do you temper your trust based on the circumstances at hand?

Do you also trust that the voting machine you use hasn't been tampered with, or is there that nagging little thought in the back of your head that something could have been rigged?

Bad idea.

Obviously, and contrary to what is apparently popular opinion on Slashdot, trust is not a binary decision.

Um, it's only possible for a person to derail a story if you let them.

Which it appears you have done.

Ever consider just ignoring the people you find annoying? Works pretty well for me.

I'm more incredulous that Slate ran a factual story that wasn't 99% opinion.

Considering that "AC" is a pseudonym in itself, I'd say yes, yes it is.

The "libertarian viewpoint" isn't that every opinion is worth considering, it's that every opinion has an equal right to be heard.

And really, that's not a "libertarian viewpoint" so much as "the spirit of the 1st Amendment."

Quite obviously they were asking for proof of your claim,

But yea, pretend to be dense, that'll sway people's opinions for sure.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

A duck is a duck, regardless of whether you choose to call it a fowl or a mallard.

In fairness, much of the chagrin towards people who self-label themselves in such a manner is a result of their apparently contradictory behavior.

Consider that many people here consider "Christian" to be a perjorative, even though the classical meaning of the term implies a person who lives by the teachings of a man once known as the Prince of Peace.

Same shit, different flies.

Actually it's not, because it's not "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."

Now, claiming that the people who control the world are all members of the aforementioned group? That is stereotyping.

Link, perchance? Please and thank you.