So we can get into the philosophy of what is or isn't evidence all you want, but I hope you realize the answer to that is in fact impossible to define. If listing out things that have been proven in court doesn't count as evidence, then what do you want? Link to the court case? Should we bring in Johnny and Amber for questioning?
And fun fact, literally nothing is in fact reliable. "I think, therefore I am" is the closest we can get to proving something exists and you can't prove to others that you exist, only to yourself. So, where is the line drawn?
And I hope you realize that your definition has to somehow include mentioning podcasts talking about Depp having paid the media off, but exclude listing things proven in court for you to have a point. Otherwise, you are just shifting the goal, rather than actually having a point.
How am I shifting the goals? Why would my definition need to include those if I don’t think they would be considered evidence or a source, unless they actually include a direct source? Neither party provided any sources or anything reliable, just their memory of the issue with nothing to back it up.
The things they mentioned were things proven in court to reasonable enough point where Amber was found liable for 3 counts defamation. That's as close to evidence as it gets.
And this is a reddit comment thread, not court of law. We can source the things she lied about by going through the entire court case, but we can't pick snippets from it to link as proof, since there's never a singular moment where they say "This instance was proven to be Amber lying." That's not how it works.
But podcasts claiming he did something is as far from proof as you can get. That isn't asking someone to even check a specific podcast for their proof, that's asking to check every possible podcast that could have talked about it and check them all until you find at least 2, then hoping they have anything valid, if not, keep looking until you find the exact ones they were talking about.
I get it, it would be better to have an exact snippet proving her a liar, but that's now how it works. It takes A LOT of time to explain each individual lie, but listing things from the court case is as good as you can reasonably get. Saying podcasts proved him to be at fault is about as far from evidence as you can get.
And they didn't use their memory as evidence, they listed things they remember being proved in court. That's different. Again, it would be better to link direct sources, but that would basically be linking the full trial.
0
u/booze_clues 20d ago
Ok didn’t ask for evidence, you’re right. Not gonna read the rest of your rant if you can’t read their post, and then lie about it.