In reply to:
The statement 'Protecting the common good means nothing to some people.' is a response to a news article about the Supreme Court's decision to invalidate a ban on bump stocks. The tone is critical and implies that the decision is not in the interest of public safety. The intent appears to be to express disapproval of the ruling and to suggest that those who support the decision are not concerned with the common good.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but implies a negative judgment on those who support the decision. This could be seen as a minor violation of striving to do no harm with words. [-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, and respects the privacy and dignity of others.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 more accusatory and divisive. [-1]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 general negative assertion without engaging in a reasoned argument or discussion. [-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 exercises free speech but does not use the platform to foster responsible or constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.