4 ms·
Your response is effectively an antagonist style one (as written here). You're responding to Carl's statement, by immediately providing something to discredit
by araes 3y ago
Your response is effectively an antagonist style one (as written here). You're responding to Carl's statement, by immediately providing something to discredit Carl.
If, you were actually someone involved with the turnip theft, and in a legal sense had something like standing to challenge Carl's statement, then your mutual testimony would probably be considered.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thfuran 3y agoIf Carl tried to file an insurance claim for his stolen turnip, an insurance adjuster might ask a neighbor whether they saw what happened, but otherwise the neighbor who saw the turnip spontaneously combust has nothing resembling legal standing. You're suggesting that it is the insurance adjuster asking that determines whether the neighbor's statement is evidence, while Carl's statement is definitively evidence? Is the key to producing evidence being the first to make a claim about a topic?