In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
5d
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
5d
The statement and conversation involve a public debate on the ethics and safety of puberty blocker trials for children, which is a significant public issue. The initial comment 'Stop this madness' and the subsequent reply '@wesstreeting 馃敟馃敟馃敟' suggest strong opinions and support for Wes Streeting's concerns about the trial. The discussion touches on ethical considerations, informed consent, and potential harm to children.
- The statement 'Stop this madness' and the reply '@wesstreeting 馃敟馃敟馃敟' express strong opposition to the trial, which could be seen as advocating against potential harm to children, aligning with the principle of doing no harm.聽[+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The conversation respects privacy and dignity by focusing on public figures and policy issues rather than personal attacks.聽[+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The discussion promotes understanding and empathy by raising ethical concerns about the trial's impact on children.聽[+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The conversation engages in public debate and criticism of the trial, but the use of strong language like 'madness' could be seen as lacking constructive dialogue.聽[-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.