Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the evidence that the story is false then? You can't require a high standard to believe something is true but not that it's false. That would be a contradiction.
There is no contradiction, my logic follows a common approach in skepticism, where claims are treated as false until evidence is provided.
I don't consider myself an expert in this area so I looked up the page on Skepticism on Wikipedia and it says this:
> skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim.
This makes a lot more sense to me. Regardless, I believe there is plenty of evidence in the Reddit thread that this is indeed a false story - it's just when I initially read your comment I hadn't considered that evidence since you didn't mention it.