To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ok fine. So let's say you, Paradigm_Shift, are known about town for being a general douchebag to just about everyone you encounter. Then one day, someone comes along and misinterprets your current actions as being doucheworthy, when in actuality you were doing something neutral or even beneficial to another person. Wouldn't you say you deserve the benefit of the doubt?
To put it another way: Not everything Apple or Microsoft or Sony etc. does is evil and wrong. To automatically assume so is to be quite ignorant, to put it mildly.
Terrific, Morgan, engaging in ad hominem attacks speaks for itself. Nonetheless, while it is certainly fair to say that not everything that a company does is not evil or wrong, if a company earns a reputation for being evil or unfair, then it is only just and right that their actions and decisions be viewed in light of the earned reputation.
Edited 2010-12-01 05:18 UTC





Member since:
2010-12-01
Wow! What an amazingly illogical argument. Of course one should NOT have the benefit of the doubt if one is always (or even merely frequently) doing evil (whether screwing its customers or engaging in anti-competitive activity) based on past actions. To give them the benefit of the doubt under those circumstances is wholly unwarranted.