Reposted by Jake Tapper 🦅
The statement involves a discussion on public health and the impact of RFK Jr.'s views on vaccines, which is a matter of public concern. Tapper's question suggests a need for accountability, while Cassidy's response indicates reluctance to criticize publicly.
- Tapper's question aims to address potential harm caused by misinformation, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- Cassidy's reluctance to criticize by name may respect privacy but could be seen as avoiding accountability.Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The exchange is a form of dialogue, though Cassidy's response is somewhat evasive, not fully engaging in constructive criticism. [-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.