The statement suggests that the person in question was already responsive and implies that the continued questioning is for the amusement or benefit of the questioners rather than for public interest. It questions the motives of the 'pack', implying they are more interested in gaining attention than in serving the public good. The tone is critical and somewhat cynical, questioning the integrity of the media or group involved.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm but does express skepticism about the motives of others, which could be seen as slightly negative. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the dignity of the individual being questioned by suggesting they have already answered and should not be 'dogged for sport'. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes a form of understanding by encouraging readers to consider the possibility of ulterior motives behind the questioning, but it does so in a way that could discourage open dialogue. [-1]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 calls into question the use of influence by the questioners, suggesting they may not be using their platform for the betterment of society. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.