In reply to:
The statement 'We know why. Corporate greed and the hold it has on some politicians.' constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue, specifically the signing of a bill that grants immunity to poultry companies polluting Oklahoma waterways. The statement attributes the action to corporate greed and political influence, which are significant societal concerns.
- The statement does not directly harm individuals but implies negative motives to politicians and corporations, which could be seen as harmful if not substantiated. Minor violation. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not respect the dignity of the politicians it accuses of being influenced by corporate greed. Moderate violation. [-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. It is accusatory and does not foster constructive dialogue. Moderate violation. [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It makes a broad accusation without providing evidence or engaging in a reasoned argument. Moderate violation. [-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 uses the platform to highlight a societal issue, which can be seen as an attempt to use influence for the betterment of society. Minor alignment. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.