In reply to:
Salomon 🪷
@SalomonSpeaks
·
2d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
2d
The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the implications of using military force in domestic legal matters, contrasting it with the legal process of a trial for treason. It raises concerns about the balance between law enforcement and military intervention, contributing to a broader civic dialogue about governance and civil liberties.
- The statement strives to do no harm by advocating for legal processes over military intervention, which could harm civil liberties. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It promotes understanding by highlighting the difference between legal proceedings and military action, encouraging a discussion on governance. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive dialogue by responding to a previous comment without personal attacks, focusing on the issue at hand. [+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.
- It upholds free speech by responsibly using the platform to discuss the implications of military involvement in legal matters. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.