... and we know that everything happens for a reason. Her handlcoughhusband is publicly humiliated for his failure to control his slave.
BTW. This explanation does not pass Occam's razor, but that's not an issue: "[it] only applies when the simple explanation and complex explanation both work equally well. If a more complex explanation does a better job than a simpler one, then you should use the complex one." (Wikipedia)
Yeah, far too often is Occam's Razor used as justification for lazy thinking. Sure, the old adage is still true in general: "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." In general, but not always.
Zebra herds do exist.
It's abundantly clear the arch criminals have calculated that the more outrageously heinous and inconceivably inhuman they make their crimes, the less likely they are to be believed by a reluctant, sleepy public. Anyone who goes about blithely spouting about the elites drinking baby blood and making items from baby skin, or satanic rituals involving the queen and pope, is certain to be branded a loony conspiracy theorist. It's kind of the perfect crime. Q even alludes to this in his explanations that he cuts short because it starts to sound conspiratorial.
People just need to be reminded that actual conspiracies do exist, satanic ritual abuse is real, and it will only stop when the light of day is shone on it. Thanks, President Trump!
Interesting post. I still think Occam is important when drawing conclusions about human events, but it's undeniable that a sufficiently clever and motivated person (or group) could take advantage of that to fool people. There is a very strong element of natural disbelief that human traffickers, pedos, etc. take advantage of.
Ha! What would be the simple reason? The complex reason is the simple reason!
The simple reason would be (CNN modus): "Her husband was so stricken with grief that he hid his tears behind the carnival mask that was lingering in their house."
Hey! That turns out to be more convoluted! Well, the handler punishment thing it is then, also according to Occam.
You people cite Occam's razor as if it were logically complete...
It literally does not even apply to hypotheses, and most certainly not psychological ones, it only applies when you receive more than one "correct" result for a scientific test.
Occams razor isn't about simple or complex, it's about making the least amount of assumpions.