Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement critiques the allocation of U.S. government spending, particularly the military budget, and suggests that redirecting these funds could address domestic issues such as food, shelter, and medical care. The tone is critical and implies a moral judgment about current policies.
- The statement does not appear to intend harm; it critiques policy rather than individuals, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+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. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement aims to promote understanding and empathy by highlighting the potential benefits of reallocating military spending to social services. [+2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments; it focuses on policy critique. [+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 uses the speaker's influence to advocate for societal betterment by suggesting a reallocation of resources. [+2]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech principles and uses the platform responsibly to discuss a significant public issue. [+2]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.