Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement refers to an interview with Daniel Penny discussing his actions on a subway incident involving Jordan Neely. It suggests a public discourse context as it addresses a societal issue related to public safety and personal responsibility.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but discusses a situation where harm was a concern, suggesting a neutral stance.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity by not engaging in derogatory language 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 does express personal discomfort with confrontation, which may imply a level of empathy.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, maintaining a focus on the speaker's perspective. [+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.
- There is no acknowledgment of mistakes, as the speaker expresses no regrets, which may suggest a lack of self-reflection. [-1]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement uses the speaker's influence to discuss a public safety issue, which can be seen as contributing to societal betterment. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by expressing personal views in a public forum, using the platform responsibly. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.