>>101389197
In epistemology, ęthere are two schools of thought in regards to how we(people) can know things: rationalism and empiricism
From these two stem two main theories for deciding a truth value to an opinion/idea, these two being theory of correspondence(empirism) and of coherence(rationalism)
In our case, from both an empirical and rational vision, we see a consistency— not of ideas and claims, but of character. From either point of view we can come to the conclusion that it's rational to trust her side of the story due to what we know of her as a person
Her conclusion and final explenation does paint a full picture, but only if you account for her state at the start of the problem(her saying the wrong name and giving opposing excuses/explanations)
Given these facts, you can either believe her or come to your own conclusion. The truth is that we don't have enough empirical evidence for her either having or not having a boyfriend, so take a stance and live with it without tormenting and terrorizing others.
Basically, the "michael" posts, at this point, come strictly from either people who do not think or from people who don't care or from people who have a cuck fetish
Hope this helps
>>101389210
>you don't know what the truth is
This is the tl;dr