It’s interesting which word people cling to. You choose to cling to the word, “would” and argue the differences between “would” and “could”. I still read the sentence as hinging on the word, “thought”. And I’d even argue that it makes little difference whether something takes place on the internet or elsewhere as the tendencies of humans are the same. People choose to judge others based on a single incidence in other’s past and use it to condemn them for all eternity. It seems as though there is little room in people’s minds to allow others to be capable of change, self-reflection and moral decency once a single mistake has been made.

The phrase, “once a cheater, always a cheater” is an example of how people who have been cheated on tend to believe that anyone who makes a mistake of cheating on someone else is morally marked, tainted and doomed to repeat the mistake over and over again and can’t ever be trusted in the affairs of the heart. Yet most of us are aware that we aren’t paragons of perfection and we have had at least trespass of moral ineptitude in our lives. Perhaps it was a lie we told as a child, a small trinket we stole at a young age, or something which merely lingers on our conscience to remind us that we’re not an angel incarnate here on earth in human form. The rest are likely in denial or can’t cope with the level of corruption inside of them, but I’m quite certain that there’s no such thing as moral perfection.

With regards to the Fine Brothers, the use of the word, “could” vs “would” is all a matter of possibility versus probability. Which ties back to why I see the key word in the sentence as “thought”. People perceived that because the Fine Brothers had shown themselves to make questionable decisions previously with respect to their moral compass, then forever after they would continue to make unsound decisions when faced with equivalent moral circumstances. The fact that they had done so in the past however is not proof that they would continue to make the same mistakes in the future. In other words, a person who is caught running a red light, stealing a video game, cheating on a test, sneaking into the movies, … isn’t necessarily guilty of the same crime in perpetuity. It’s possible that they are repeat offenders, but it isn’t probable based on statistics and laws of averages. Regardless, many people would tend to condemn merely based on the mechanics of how their minds are prejudiced against people who have made a mistake and they feel protected and that they are erring on the side of caution by acting prejudically and unfairly against the person. However, if the shoe were on the other foot, and those same people who are being exceedingly judgmental were being judged extremely for each and every single mistake they have made, you can bet they would be arguing and fighting tooth and nail.