The statement criticizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its actions regarding the regulation of 'forever chemicals' in drinking water, suggesting that the agency is not only failing to protect the public but is actively causing harm. This constitutes public discourse as it engages with a significant public health and policy issue.
- The statement implies harm by suggesting the EPA is proactively harming the public, which could be seen as a violation of striving to do no harm with words. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is accusatory and lacks constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue and could be seen as a personal attack on the EPA. [-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 influence to raise awareness about a public issue, which aligns with using influence for societal betterment. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by addressing a public concern, but the accusatory tone may not fully align with using the platform responsibly.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.