Maybe you don't blame the government because you don't have skin in the game I do because my wife's family is affected by this inaction.
What inaction? It would be helpful in understanding you if you qualify your terms. I have no idea what you mean by "having skin in the game". What game? And why is it not believable to you when I state forthrightly that I don't blame any administrations for things that they can't control?
What do you mean I moved the goalpost, I gave my opinion on who I think is the culprit.
Actually, I said let's not move the goal posts. And I qualified that by saying, "Before it was Harris who was being blamed for them coming, and now the administration is being blamed because those who enter illegally, sneak in". Those are two different forms of blame.
You said: "But it is the administration's fault for how they enter". You don't say how or why it's the administration's fault that people sneak in. When people say something bad about others, I need to see the reason as to why it's true, otherwise it's just slander. When I say I don't blame the administration for how illegal immigrants get in, I'm not slandering anyone.
You are the one who identified this issue as slander. I think you accused first.
I'm identifying slander as saying something bad about someone without adequate proof. If you give me adequate proof, as in facts not opinions, when you say something bad about someone, then I won't see it as slander.
Thank you, I love this honesty ---> "
I think you accused first". <--- With that in mind do you remember this exchange below?
I don't understand. What distinction should be drawn when both parties bad mouth each other?
I'm saying not to get lost in the semantics. To elaborate, don't get lost in the semantics so that you can't tell a positive from a negative. To elaborate further, don't get lost in the semantics so that you can't tell the truth from the lie.
Example: A calls B a liar without any proof, which is a lie in itself. So, B calls A a liar which is true and not a lie. <--- There is a distinction.
I'm talking about
the ad hominem attack logical fallacy. The ad hominem attack is a tactic where a person engages in a personal attack against the character of their opponent to avoid arguing the substance of their argument.
Since engaging in personal attacks to avoid the substantive argument is a show of bad character in itself, it's not an ad hominem attack logical fallacy to discredit the character of a person who engages in an ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
In propaganda the intention is to turn positives into negatives, and negatives into positives, but more common, is to use propaganda to make them both look neutral so that no one can tell the difference.
