Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DollarManSteve
For example, someone suspects a sponsor is shaving, has no proof or evidence and then resorts to an explanation which can also not be proved and then says 'now prove to ME you arent shaving since you might be doing this'. This is the same logic conspiracy theorists base their arguments on - unproveable postdictive speculations.
|
Note that I'm not drawing conclusions about any particular sponsor here, only engaging in speculative debate, so...
I think your argument could go either way. If, as you say, accusations of shaving generally can't be proven, then it seems utterly illogical for a sponsor NOT to shave, since shaving clearly has a major positive impact on sponsor revenue, and cannot be proven absolutely from outside - only inferred by, as you say, "unproveable postdictive speculation."
"OK, guys, we can make a lot more money by shaving in ways that can't be proven and can simply be denied, or we can engage in 'ethics' and lose out on all the extra revenue." What do you think Mr.
would choose? How about Sony? Halliburton?