Marianne Williamson

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 68
8/6/2024, 5:10:16 PM
X
In reply to:
A Pointless Fool
@APointlessFool
·
351d
@marwilliamson Food desert is a made up term and I don’t accept your language.

Also, assume there were specific spots that this actually helps nutrition wise. Why do it at the state level? Is the whole state a food desert? This is all so dumb and another way to use children as a proxy for more…
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
351d
@APointlessFool Many obese children are actually malnourished. They are not fed healthy food, in many cases because they live in food deserts we’re fresh fruits and vegetables are not even available, and their bodies keep craving calories to compensate for the malnourishment.
A Pointless Fool
@APointlessFool
·
351d
im glad all those morbidly obese children have free lunch now

free school food is great, but mostly because its easier for the parents as they can skip having to make a $3 lunch for their kids (sandwich, fruit, etc).

No one is malnourished or starving in america. we are all…
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
351d
Walz was a good choice. He had me at “Free breakfast and lunch for every child at school.”

By the way, that will improve the educational performance of those children and ultimately their ability to create wealth and opportunity for themselves.

Don’t let anyone tell you that’s…

The statement 'What’s tiring to me is willful ignorance of the facts among intelligent people' constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about public issues, specifically the concept of 'food deserts' and the nutritional challenges faced by children. The tone is critical and somewhat confrontational, aiming to challenge the previous speaker's understanding and acceptance of certain terms and concepts.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but its confrontational tone could be seen as dismissive, which might indirectly cause emotional harm. [-1]
  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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does border on disrespect by implying the other party is willfully ignorant.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it dismisses the other party's viewpoint without offering a constructive alternative. [-1]
  4. 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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It uses a personal attack by implying the other party is willfully ignorant, which is an ad hominem argument. [-2]