Reposted by Jake Tapper 🦅
The statement addresses a public health issue, specifically the rise in measles cases and the political implications of vaccination promotion. It questions the administration's response to the outbreaks, suggesting a political motive behind the lack of vigorous promotion of measles vaccination.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but implies negligence by the administration, which could be seen as harmful if not substantiated. [-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 implies a political motive without fostering 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, as it ends with a rhetorical question that suggests a known answer, potentially alienating those in disagreement. [-2]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 highlight a public health issue, but it does so in a way that may not contribute positively to societal betterment due to its accusatory tone. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement exercises free speech but could be seen as lacking responsibility and integrity due to its accusatory and potentially divisive nature. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.