It is not about acknowledgement, it’s about understanding the morality of the action. Most of the time, only they know the answer to that question.

In my opinion, in order for an action to be evil, the actor must know what is good or what is right behavior. While sometimes the actor acts with intent to cause harm, sometimes, the actor is ignorant of such things.

If that guy is in his 40’s he has lived a hard life. I’m surprised he is still conscious let alone mobile.

That is like the home owner’s application of the scientific method: test the hypothesis until you decide it is a pretty solid system

What about the ideas that can be neither confirmed nor denied like the existence of extraterrestrial life or a machine of 100% efficiency?

What if you should have some doubt (belief) but due to ignorance or hubris do not and so you elevate a concept to ‘knowledge’ that should not rightfully be there? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m genuinely curious about that gray area of misplaced confidence.

So the stronger the feeling of identifying with a concept, the stronger the belief that it is true?

What if the claim were false?

What if she wasn’t from Pitcairn? No big deal other than her credibility comes into question.

What if Gengis Kahn did not exist? Nothing lost, we already doubt our historical record.

What if Jesus did not exist? Suddenly the largest religion’s foundation is gone.

What if God doesn’t exist? Many people lose their reason for existing…

That which has enormous impact should require proof of truthfulness.

True AND it is the easiest way to dismiss his actions. Added bonus, if he tries to admit he is a journalist and not an entertainer, back to court he goes.