In reply to:
Phil Wilson
@PhilWilson123
·
572d
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
575d
The statement in question is part of a complex conversation involving multiple users discussing the veracity of information related to a political figure and the actions of political parties. The tone of the statement is inquisitive and challenges the previous user's claim by asking for clarification and evidence. It does not appear to be harmful, disrespectful, or lacking in empathy. The statement seeks to engage in constructive criticism by asking for specific details to be pointed out that are incorrect. It does not seem to violate any principles of the oath but rather aligns with promoting understanding and engaging in dialogue.
- The statement does not cause harm and is focused on seeking clarity. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding by asking for evidence to support claims. [+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 user is open to correcting misunderstandings by asking for specific incorrect parts to be identified. [+1]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.