Marianne Williamson

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 85
6/5/2025, 12:06:50 PM
X
In reply to:
Edward
@EdwardS75827991
·
4d
@marwilliamson @ask195 Should the Allies have stopped World War II, and left Hitler in power, after the Dresden bombings?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
4d
@ask195 I didn’t say Israel has no right to defend itself. But continuing this war is doing the opposite of that, creating more suffering which is creating more hatred which will create more suffering which will create more hatred for years to come.
Orfmaster
@ask195
·
4d
@marwilliamson Tell Hamas to release all hostages and to dismember as a govt. Saying Israel defending its right for existence and murdered citizens has caused antisemitism is exactly the definition of it.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
4d
@ask195 Good try. No it's not.
Orfmaster
@ask195
·
4d
@marwilliamson That is antisemitic right there.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
4d
The way for Trump to help stamp out at antisemitism is not to go after Harvard; it’s to tell Netanyahu in no uncertain terms to stop this war.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the complex issue of military action against Hamas and its consequences, drawing a comparison to historical events. It critiques the effectiveness and morality of continued military efforts, highlighting civilian casualties and the perpetuation of hatred.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement highlights the harm caused by military actions, particularly civilian casualties, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+2]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By discussing the consequences of military actions, the statement attempts to promote understanding and empathy for the affected civilians, aligning with this principle. [+2]
  3. 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 engages in constructive criticism of the analogy used in the previous conversation, focusing on the issue rather than personal attacks. [+1]