The statement from Governor Kristi Noem suggesting that President Biden’s dog, Commander, should have been killed, similar to an incident involving her own family’s dog, constitutes public discourse as it involves a public figure making a controversial statement about another public figure's pet in a political context. This statement engages with issues of animal treatment, political rhetoric, and potentially the character and decision-making of public figures.
- The statement does harm by promoting a violent perspective towards animals, which could be distressing and inflammatory. [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement disrespects the dignity of President Biden by involving his pet in a political attack, which could be seen as a form of harassment. [-2]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, especially towards animals and opposing political figures. [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement fails to engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, instead using a personal and sensitive topic to attack an opponent. [-2]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement does not use influence for the betterment of society but rather engages in divisive and harmful rhetoric. [-2]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.