Reposted by Bret Baier
Jerry Dunleavy IV 🇺🇸
@JerryDunleavy
·
326d
The statement criticizes a public figure, Walz, for his response to a question about his military service, suggesting that his answer was dishonest and lacked humility. The tone is critical and somewhat harsh, aiming to hold the public figure accountable for his statements.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but uses strong language ('disappointing response,' 'rambling tripe,' 'shame on him') which could be seen as harsh criticism. It does not promote harm but could be more constructive. [-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 the public figure's actions and statements rather than attacking his character. [+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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on criticism and accountability. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but does not offer constructive dialogue or solutions. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments but could be more constructive.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 upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to hold a public figure accountable, but it could be more responsible and constructive in its approach. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.