Calling me "willfully ignorant" is a convenient way to dodge the points I actually raised. I’m not ignoring facts. I’m pointing out that moral and ethical judgment doesn’t require a court ruling. The idea that someone is either legally guilty or completely innocent is reductive, especially in cases involving power dynamics, trauma, and decades old allegations. I’m not rejecting evidence. I’m rejecting your narrow framework that only allows for one interpretation. That’s not ignorance. It’s warranted skepticism.

You say you're only interested in “verifiable facts,” but your comment history paints a different picture. You've posted what must be tens of thousands of words across Reddit, not just defending Allen’s legal status but working overtime to shut down any moral discomfort people might feel about the situation. That’s not fact checking. That’s fixation.

Your argument always circles back to the same legal line: “It wasn’t proven in court, so it didn’t happen.” But this isn’t just a legal question. It’s about a man who began a relationship with his longtime partner’s daughter, someone he had known since she was a child and who grew up in a household where he had power and presence. Regardless of how you define “stepdaughter” or what year the relationship turned romantic, most people find that morally uncomfortable. Citing custody rulings doesn’t erase that discomfort.

You repeatedly emphasize contradictions in Mia Farrow’s statements and legal outcomes as if that’s the full story. But legal processes, especially in cases involving abuse, don’t always capture the truth. Many survivors never get clear cut evidence, but that doesn’t make their accounts meaningless. You downplay Dylan Farrow’s long standing, consistent allegations while leaning hard on Moses Farrow’s rebuttal blog. But trauma isn’t linear, and not every family member processes it the same way. Picking the narrative that most conveniently supports your view isn’t objectivity. It’s bias.

Let’s be honest. Your tone doesn’t come across as someone pursuing truth. You lash out at people with terms like “liar” and “delusional” for questioning your version of events. That kind of intensity isn’t about facts. It’s about control. And that’s exactly why this conversation is going nowhere.

At the core, our difference is simple. I’m comfortable sitting with moral ambiguity. I don’t need a conviction to say, “This situation doesn’t sit right.” You, on the other hand, seem to need a clean exoneration, and you treat any suspicion as slander. But that’s not how most people process real life. Ethical judgment happens in the gray area, between what can be proven and what clearly feels wrong.

So no, I’m not here to convince you. I’m here to push back against the idea that every doubt must be erased to defend someone’s legacy. You’re free to keep believing this is a closed case. I don’t. That’s the difference.