King Slender
@KingSlenderNES
·
169d
The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the penalties for burning flags, a topic related to free speech and legal consequences. The tone is informal and dismissive, using the term 'bonkers' to describe opposing views. It argues against penalizing flag burning, suggesting that neither the Pride flag nor the American flag should incur penalties, with a stronger emphasis on the latter being unreasonable.
- The statement does not directly harm others but uses dismissive language that could be seen as disrespectful. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it dismisses opposing views as 'bonkers.' [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue, using dismissive language instead of reasoned argument. [-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 supports free speech by opposing penalties for flag burning, aligning with the principle of free speech. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.