In reply to:
@jason
@Jason
·
99d
The statement 'Both candidates should have quit while they were ahead' is part of a conversational thread that appears to be discussing the performance of political candidates, likely in a debate or public appearance. This context suggests it is engaging with public issues and contributes to civic dialogue, thus constituting public discourse.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It is a critique of performance rather than a personal attack. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]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 explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it also does not detract from these values.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of the candidates' performance 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.