Reposted by Vivek Ramaswamy
Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy
·
585d
The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the FDA's approval system, which is a public issue related to healthcare and regulatory policies. The tone is critical but not overtly hostile, and the intent appears to be to highlight perceived flaws in the FDA's processes.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly but criticizes an institution, which is a legitimate part of public discourse. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It focuses on institutional critique rather than personal attacks. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement aims to promote understanding of the FDA's approval system, though it could be more empathetic in its approach. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of the FDA without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+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.
- By discussing the FDA's approval system, the statement uses its influence to potentially advocate for better regulatory practices, which could benefit society. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly to discuss a public issue. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.