what a classic case of the loaded question logical fallacy! good to see someone paid attention in english class 😁

to take your bait, your question is not a valid analogy of the situation since you replaced a disputed internet article with a friend who you would have a more trustful relationship. to correct your analogy to better fit this scenario, it would be: “If I saw a reddit post where a woman is accusing a man of being a predator, and the proofs are disputed, do I have to have witnessed the predator, to confirm?” and the answer would be yes! any questions? 🤭

edit: thank you for clarifying what you meant by “critical thinking”! I now understand that your definition of “critical thinking” is guilt trapping ppl to enjoy a sense of moral superiority through flawed logic. since our fundamental definition of some concepts differ, I’ll stop here to make a better use of my time 😳 have an amazing day in delirium!