4 ms·
That's a bad faith interpretation and nowhere near what I said. To prove that he slandered them you have to prove that he knew it was false. If someone truly
by hunterb123 4y ago
That's a bad faith interpretation and nowhere near what I said.
To prove that he slandered them you have to prove that he knew it was false.
If someone truly believes what they are saying, it's not defamation.
What I'm saying is his record and his attitude all indicated he truly believed it, imo.
The same people calling him crazy / a conspiracy theorist are saying he did it with malice / intent.
Those are contradicting beliefs.
- jacobolus 4y agoIt is very clear that he doesn’t believe his own nonsense (did you follow the trial?). He’s not “crazy” in the sense that he does not comprehend reality, but rather in the sense that he is a psychopath who doesn’t have empathy for other humans and doesn’t have any respect for society and its basic norms and rules, including civil/criminal law. The dude figured out a way to personally profit off the murder of a bunch of 6-year-olds by calling them all actors and then mercilessly targeting their families for harassment. It was beyond malicious: one of the most heinously sadistic patterns of behavior in American history. Your defense of it is grotesque. With any luck, criminal charges will eventually catch up with him and he’ll spend many years in prison.
- hunterb123 4y ago> It is very clear that he doesn’t believe his own nonsense (did you follow the trial?). He’s not “crazy” in the sense that he does not comprehend reality, but rather in the sense that he is a psychopath who doesn’t have empathy for other humans and doesn’t have any respect for society and its basic norms and rules, including civil/criminal law. What specifics in the trial made it clear that he comprehends reality but acted "psychopathic" on purpose?