ANSWERS: 10
-
Well I think it should only be fair to hear their claims before passing judgment!
-
As the old saying goes - "Kill 'em all and let God decide which one of them is right or wrong".
-
That's what evidence, or citation, is for.
-
Firstly, you look for evidence, or a third opinion. Secondly, you consider the relatively likelihood of their statements. Thirdly, you consider their track record on telling the truth, particularly difficult truths, in the past. Fourthly, you consider what motivation each would have for deceit.
-
In a court of law , all things being equal, the judge would dismiss the case. Neither makes their claim. It's a question of fact. Get corroboration from an outside source - or faggitabowdit.
-
In the country, the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment give both the right to state their case.
-
Both should be allowed. But those who listen, are encumbent to examine their evidence.
-
Just open the box and see if the cat's still smiling.
-
What do you mean who should be believed? We don't even have a story or an example here. Both should be heard and allowed to make their case. It's called a courtroom.
-
If it is a subject about which I know enough to have a strong opinion, I would be likely to believe whichever person is stating an opinion in line with my own. I also take into account each person's record of telling the truth and will listen to the person who disagrees with me, especially if the person has a good track record and is known to be knowledgeable. If I have no opinion about the subject, I would, if I cared enough about the topic, seek out more information about it on my own. Then I would form my opinion based on my own research which would include asking opinions. Neither should be silenced. Nobody has the patent on the truth, including me. I have some very set opinions and beliefs after having gathered enough information to have these opinions and beliefs. That does not make me right.
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

by 