3 ms·
Because that's defamation.
by debacle 15y ago
Because that's defamation.
- jeremyarussell 15y agoOnly if they can prove the Kaiser spokesperson was lying.
- oconnore 15y agoDo you have any evidence to support them being especially ethical, or is this just a gut reaction? The facts are that we don't have enough facts, we have an unsubstantiated accusation that should be treated as such.
- debacle 15y agoCountering an unsubstantiated accusation with another unsubstantiated accusation isn't going to get us anywhere. It's not about being ethical. It's about exposing yourself to liability.
- oconnore 15y agoWhere, exactly, did I make any accusation at all? I said we don't have enough evidence to make meaningful claims, which I still hold to be true.
- raganwald 15y agoThis is a kind of Ad Hominem Circumstantial, turned inside-out. Sometimes we slam someone’s statement by pointing out their self-interest. This is supporting their statement by pointing out their self-interest, but it has essentially the same form. Either way, it is not a direct argument with the statement.