Atheists Lest Trusted than Rapists

[scott]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-atheists-distrusted-as-much-as-rapists/2011/12/09/gIQAfYUiiO_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpos t


Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists


By Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service, Published: December 9 | Updated: Saturday, December 10, 1:50 PM

A new study finds that atheists are among society’s most distrusted group, comparable even to rapists in certain circumstances.

Psychologists at the University of British Columbia and the University of Oregon say that their study demonstrates that anti-atheist prejudice stems from moral distrust, not dislike, of nonbelievers.

“It’s pretty remarkable,” said Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and a co-author of the study, which appears in the current issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The study, conducted among 350 Americans adults and 420 Canadian college students, asked participants to decide if a fictional driver damaged a parked car and left the scene, then found a wallet and took the money, was the driver more likely to be a teacher, an atheist teacher, or a rapist teacher?

The participants, who were from religious and nonreligious backgrounds, most often chose the atheist teacher.

The study is part of an attempt to understand what needs religion fulfills in people. Among the conclusions is a sense of trust in others.

“People find atheists very suspect,” Shariff said. “They don’t fear God so we should distrust them; they do not have the same moral obligations of others. This is a common refrain against atheists. People fear them as a group.”

Shariff, who studies atheism and religion, said the findings provide a clue to combating anti-atheism prejudice.

“If you manage to offer credible counteroffers of these stereotypes, this can do a lot to undermine people’s existing prejudice,” he said. “If you realize there are all these atheists you’ve been interacting with all your life and they haven’t raped your children that is going to do a lot do dispel these stereotypes.”

[scott]

I'm glad Religious people believe in God, because apparently its the only thing stopping them from going around and raping babies.

[scott]

Eh... the title should be "less trusted" sorry.

scott is the lest a good speller than a 2nd grader tonight.

[redzero]

Religious people being retarded. Nothing to see here.

[Bill_Brasky]

Religious people being retarded. Nothing to see here.

[baseline bum]

So that's why Kobe consistently beats Manu in jersey sales.

[phyzik]

Speaking as an atheist, the feeling is mutual... How can you trust someone who only does good because they fear the precieved consiquences of their faith... Nevermind that if they do something bad, they can just pray it away without any moral obligations.

Why not just do good for the sake of doing something good?

[phyzik]

as far as my previous post, I guess it sounds a little short sighted and just as close minded as those who have faith.

Dont get me wrong, many of my friends and family still have a faith based belief and I would trust many of them with my life. I just find it funny and somewhat interesting, with as rampant as priests raping children in their parish is, that people would still distrust a completely honest person who just happens to not believe in a higher power.

That, to me, sounds like cultish brainwashing.

[mingus]

I worked with a Jehova's Witness who stepped in front of a gun to save someone's live at work. Said he had an obligation to save the person's life, following the biblical tenant of treating others as you would want to be treated. He afterward declined to be interviewed by the local news, following the biblical tenant of modesty.

I'd bet 9/10 times the religous person has more balls than the athiest in those kinds of situations. If it we my life, in that situation, i'd trust a religious person more.

[greyforest]

Many people lack the capacity for empathy and probably would do evil shit if they didn't think they'd be punished. Since people who lack empathy literally lack the capability of understanding it (physical brain defect), they conclude that no atheist could be virtuous or compassionate.

[baseline bum]

I worked with a Jehova's Witness who stepped in front of a gun to save someone's live at work. Said he had an obligation to save the person's life, following the biblical tenant of treating others as you would want to be treated. He afterward declined to be interviewed by the local news, following the biblical tenant of modesty.

I'd bet 9/10 times the religous person has more balls than the athiest in those kinds of situations. If it we my life, in that situation, i'd trust a religious person more.

So you picked atheist teacher?

[Blake]

I worked with a Jehova's Witness who stepped in front of a gun to save someone's live at work.

How many bullets were in the gun

[Winehole23]

I'm glad Religious people believe in God, because apparently its the only thing stopping them from going around and raping babies.Hey, whatever works for you, man. Judge by the fruits. If it works, it's probably better people have that than nothing. Fear of an angry, paternalistic sky god.

What stops people from raping babies, btw?

[Winehole23]

What caused King David to cut the strings of his harp and throw it away?

[Winehole23]

http://users.fulladsl.be/spb1667/cultural/lorca/romancero_gitano/thamar_y_amnon.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seeing that Christianity and the other exclusionary religions explicitly dictate distrust of non-believers, this is hardly surprising.

[boutons_deux]

"Christians" demonize everybody who is (not their flavor of) Christian.

I know "Christian" Protestants (not even a PC term anymore, since it means protesting against the Catholic Church, and Protestants think they are the privileged, superior, only legitimate "Christians") who absolutely detest Christian Catholicism.

This is exactly like Repugs demonizing non-Repugs, denying non-Repugs any legitimacy to govern (Repugs blocking absolutely everything proposed by the Dems), wanting to eliminate non-Repugs from power completely and permanently.

[Spurminator]

I don't know if I follow the conclusion.


The study, conducted among 350 Americans adults and 420 Canadian college students, asked participants to decide if a fictional driver damaged a parked car and left the scene, then found a wallet and took the money, was the driver more likely to be a teacher, an atheist teacher, or a rapist teacher?

The participants, who were from religious and nonreligious backgrounds, most often chose the atheist teacher.

Isn't it possible that participants were simply acknowledging the high improbability that the wallet thief was also a rapist?

You can make the case that people were unfairly presuming the thief was an atheist, but I don't see how they're equating atheism with rape.

[scott]

I don't know if I follow the conclusion.



Isn't it possible that participants were simply acknowledging the high improbability that the wallet thief was also a rapist?

You can make the case that people were unfairly presuming the thief was an atheist, but I don't see how they're equating atheism with rape.

Even if you disregard the rapist option, the fact atheists are so distrusted by the rest of society is telling, especially in light of the fact that in the real world they are less prone to commit crimes, have higher educational achievement and greater socioeconomic standing. The statistics would indicate that atheists are, in fact, the most TRUST WORTHY religious demographic, but yet a segment of the population bases their trust on a shared faith in a deity and not the real world around us.

I'm not feigning surprise here, I'm merely outwardly expressing the illogical conclusions that religious-types jump to even beyond their religious beliefs.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm glad Religious people believe in God, because apparently its the only thing stopping them from going around and raping babies.

I wonder if the irresistable urge atheists seem to have to to be a dick towards non atheists might have something to do with the lack of trust.

[baseline bum]

I wonder if the irresistable urge atheists seem to have to to be a dick towards non atheists might have something to do with the lack of trust.

I find it funny when believers get pissed off when non-believers explain why they don't believe. Apparently atheists aren't supposed to have reasons for their lack of belief.

[SnakeBoy]

Even Jon Stewart couldn't help but notice the dickishness

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-4-2011/culture-war-update---the-dividening-of-america---american-atheists-vs--the-ground-zero-cross

[boutons_deux]

The "Christians" gave themselves the right to claim WTC rubble and site as "theirs".

Total exclusiveness (of non-Christians), total Christian-supremacist/culture-warring dickishness, which merited the atheists' push-back.

[scott]

I wonder if the irresistable urge atheists seem to have to to be a dick towards non atheists might have something to do with the lack of trust.

I'd posit the same % of Atheists who are "dicks" is about the same as the % of the Religious who are dicks. I certainly don't base my opinions of Christians on the Westboro Baptist Church or Pat Robertson or Fats Hagy, nor do I base my opinions of Muslims on Osama Bin Laden.

Someone might come and say "no, all the atheists I know are dicks!" but you'd probably be surprised to find out how many people around you are atheists and you didn't know about it. That's because atheists (myself included) generally don't talk about religion at all (outside of internet message boards).

With that said, I agree that the most publicly outspoken atheists are generally dicks, or are perceived to be dicks - probably because the people who feel slighted by dickishness are having their belief system challenged.

In response to why you felt I was being a dick, this statement:


I'm glad Religious people believe in God, because apparently its the only thing stopping them from going around and raping babies.

How is that any less dickish than insinuating, as Religious types often do, that atheists are incapable of living by an ethical/moral standard without God?

[greyforest]

How is that any less dickish than insinuating, as Religious types often do, that atheists are incapable of living by an ethical/moral standard without God?

Atheists commit less crimes than rapists.

[SnakeBoy]

Someone might come and say "no, all the atheists I know are dicks!" but you'd probably be surprised to find out how many people around you are atheists and you didn't know about it. That's because atheists (myself included) generally don't talk about religion at all (outside of internet message boards).


I actually know quite a number of atheists and none of them are dicks in person. However, online (namely facebook) many of them do tend to be dickish. It doesn't bother me since I know they think they are just being funny or trying to get a rise out of people but my wife has hidden the posts of several long time friends so she can remain friends with them in the real world. So my experience pretty much fits with how you've described yourself. It shouldn't be suprising that atheism suffers some image problems if the public relations strategy is to avoid the subject in person but be a dick in the public arena.


How is that any less dickish than insinuating, as Religious types often do, that atheists are incapable of living by an ethical/moral standard without God?

Assuming your assertion is true, it's still more dickish to imply all religious people want to rape babies. Secondly, it's really just a "but Johnny did it too" defense.

Personally I've never heard anyone say atheists were incapable of morals/ethics. I'm sure there are religious dicks who have but not enough to say religious people "often" say it. It is common for religious people to ask where atheists get their morals/ethics or what stops atheists from changinging there morals/ethics to suit their needs. Now those questions may show the person asking hasn't given much thought to the topic but I don't think they are unreasonable or offensive.

[Winehole23]

Even Jon Stewart couldn't help but notice the dickishness

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-4-2011/culture-war-update---the-dividening-of-america---american-atheists-vs--the-ground-zero-crosslol bohr model of the atom as pre-approved atheist logo

[Winehole23]

nothing wrong with it, but is a little dated

[LnGrrrR]

Snakeboy, I think atheists come off as offensive because we just find a lot of the things that religion affects to be asinine. Imagine if you went to a country where every decision was based off a coin flip. You'd probably find it pretty ridiculous and be a bit flippant when discussing policy. Sometimes it feels that way to me with politics.

[Winehole23]

legacy of the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair

[Winehole23]

a lot of the things that religion affectslike?

[Winehole23]

the caterwauling about the pinched , shallow souls of religionists, is clearly audible

[Winehole23]

the trouble itself is not yet clearly disclosed

[spursncowboys]

I'm glad Religious people believe in God, because apparently its the only thing stopping them from going around and raping babies.
Do you have a link to this story?

[The Reckoning]

atheists lest trusted to spell rite then rapsists

[Winehole23]

I thought SnakeBoy's incipient discourse on dickishness was apt, was surprised he neither continued it, nor did anyone else chume in. That Jon Stewart segment was hilarious,

[Spurminator]

I think there's an implied *actively belligerent* quality about the "dickish" atheists Christians sometimes complain about. In all of the church services I've been to, I can certainly say that there are very few Christians who would say all those who do not believe in God are assholes. That would dissuade spreading the Gospel, I would think.

With that said, even as a Christian I'd say those "dickish" atheists have more cause to be belligerent than Christians have to bemoan any supposed victimization they've suffered at the hands of political correctness or liberal Presidents who don't mention God in a Thanksgiving speech.

There is a sense of entitlement among far too many Christians with regards to how the Christian God should be acknowledged in all areas of public life.

[Trainwreck2100]

for this situation i'd trust a rapist more than a atheist, rapist rape as a power thing, stealing money is not their thing. Atheist are seen as dbags, because most of the time the only exposure they get is because atheist zealots are having a bitch fit (see complaining about a cross beam at 9/11 memorial)

[Blake]

^ link?

[Trainwreck2100]

^ link?

to what

[Blake]

to what

To the bitch fit

[Trainwreck2100]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/athiests-sue-over-world-trade-center-cross_n_912304.html

[Winehole23]

I think there's an implied *actively belligerent* quality about the "dickish" atheists Christians sometimes complain about. it's actively present in this thread (and many others lately), not just implied imho


In all of the church services I've been to, I can certainly say that there are very few Christians who would say all those who do not believe in God are assholes. That would dissuade spreading the Gospel, I would think. True. Where do you get more sinners to join?


With that said, even as a Christian I'd say those "dickish" atheists have more cause to be belligerent than Christians have to bemoan any supposed victimization they've suffered at the hands of political correctness or liberal Presidents who don't mention God in a Thanksgiving speech. why more? i'd rate it about equal


There is a sense of entitlement among far too many Christians with regards to how the Christian God should be acknowledged in all areas of public life.there's also apparently a feeling of entitlement that it's ok to denigrate and make broad ascriptions to people based on their religious belief. it is offensive too.

I see legit gripes on both sides.

[LnGrrrR]

like?

Politics, policy, culture, education, language... *shrug* I'm not one to doomsay about religion, but I think it is pervasive in American culture. The very fact that many would not vote for an atheist politician is an indicator of that.

[Winehole23]

To the bitch fitthe ongoing bitch fit about how horrible churched up folks are and how they ruin it for everyone else. I presume you are already familiar with it because you regularly participate.

[Winehole23]

Do you disbelieve in its existence?

[Winehole23]

Politics, policy, culture, education, language... *shrug* I'm not one to doomsay about religion, but I think it is pervasive in American culture. The very fact that many would not vote for an atheist politician is an indicator of that.That's a legit gripe. People are very opinionated.

Always the case in the situation of liberty.

[Winehole23]

if you're not better (or at least more numerous) the other side wins

[Yonivore]

Right or wrong, I think there is a perception -- certainly by those with a faith in a supreme creator -- that our morality is tethered to that faith; and, those without such faith are not bound to any moral tenets and can (and probably will) act according to their own desires.

Now, along the same lines -- mentioned earlier in this thread -- that religious people use religion as a reason to do do good because sin is punished; I could argue atheists do good to avoid bad consequences, as well -- criminal prosecution, ostracism, pain, etc...

Kind of oversimplified in the adage, "If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything."

[Blake]

the ongoing bitch fit about how horrible churched up folks are and how they ruin it for everyone else. I presume you are already familiar with it because you regularly participate.

I'm well aware of bitch fits from both the religious and anti-religious zealots.

I simply wanted to read about this latest bitch fit from the anti-religious.

[Winehole23]

those without such faith are not bound to any moral tenetswhy assume that. plausible, but not necessary.

morality occurs outside of religious credo, believe it or not

[Spurminator]

it's actively present in this thread (and many others lately), not just implied imho

Sure, but this is a message board. The medium lends itself to provocation. I don't think it's a good sample of what atheists are like in general, or anyone for that matter.


why more? i'd rate it about equal

IMO:

Types of Atheist Issues that piss off Christians
- No "crosses" at national memorials, and other complaints about religious symbols in public places
- Removing "In God We Trust" from currency
- Making kids say "One Nation Under God" in school
- All-inclusive "Holiday" parties that don't make non-Christians feel excluded
- Evolution's place in public science classes

Types of Christian issues that piss of atheists
- Gay marriage / Gays in the Military being outlawed
- Fights against abortion and Planned Parenthood, etc.
- Faith as a litmus for political electability
- Creationism's place in public school science classes
- The hyperbolic rage that meets any discussion of the above Atheist issues

Feel free to add any I may have missed, but it seems like if we're weighing the issues based on how important they are to civilization, the gripe atheists have with Christianity's influence seems to be more weighty.


there's also apparently a feeling of entitlement that it's ok to denigrate and make broad ascriptions to people based on their religious belief. it is offensive too.

I see legit gripes on both sides.

Sure, that feeling exists among atheists. But in the only sample I can go by (my own social acquaintances) I don't see it nearly as prevalent among my atheist friends as among my Christian friends and family.

[Winehole23]

Sure, that feeling exists among atheists. it is freely expressed here, as it should be. is it bad taste to mention that?

[Winehole23]

fair enough on the status of the asymmetry. i'm no expert on that.

[Spurminator]

it is freely expressed here, as it should be. is it bad taste to mention that?

Not at all, I just disagree that the sense of moral entitlement is generally as strong among atheists as with Christians. I think it just tends to look that way depending on what medium you're using.

For example, if we judged all atheists by reddit.com/r/atheism, we'd think they were all complete assholes.

[Winehole23]

maybe the most strident advocates distort ones perception of what is normal

[Winehole23]

quien sabe?

[The Reckoning]

no se senor

[LnGrrrR]

maybe the most strident advocates distort ones perception of what is normal

The ones who are vocal are more likely to be more strident. I've found those who speak up about their professed beliefs are rarely on the fence with them.

[Winehole23]

hard to say. yoni reversed field in his latest F&F thread. said he meant the opposite of what he actually said.

[Winehole23]

slippery, yes

[Winehole23]

(okie noodling)

[Winehole23]

random internet jackasses can be deceptively easy to deal with

[Yonivore]

why assume that. plausible, but not necessary.

morality occurs outside of religious credo, believe it or not
Stating a perception exists <> Yonivore assumes.


hard to say. yoni reversed field in his latest F&F thread. said he meant the opposite of what he actually said.
Well, that didn't happen.

[Winehole23]

of course not. you're faultlessly consistent, Yoni.

[Winehole23]

Stating a perception exists <> Yonivore assumes. Sorry, I assumed you were speaking for yourself and not for hypothetical persons or opinions. My bad.

[Yonivore]

of course not. you're faultlessly consistent, Yoni.
Again, claiming I didn't reverse myself on a specific issue <> claiming I'm "faultlessly consistent."

[Winehole23]

as for the other thread, I hope you know other people can read for themselves

[Yonivore]

One would think people in this forum would tire of you hijacking threads just to hate on me but, I guess not; you seem to be getting some award in scott's survey monkey for being the most impartial or something.

Well, that's an achievement.

[Yonivore]

as for the other thread, I hope you know other people can read for themselves
I'm sure they can...well, some of them.

[Winehole23]

like I said, you're deceptively easy to deal with, but I have more practice than most...

[Winehole23]

One would think people in this forum would tire of you hijacking threads just to hate on me but, I guess not; you seem to be getting some award in scott's survey monkey for being the most impartial or something.

Well, that's an achievement.The thread sucked. Sue me.

[Yonivore]

like I said, you're deceptively easy to deal with, but I have more practice than most...
I think you're deceiving yourself.

So, on what point did I reverse myself and please, know the definition of reverse better than you did complicit. I would hate for you to have to reverse yourself, as you did in the F&F thread because you shot from the hip.

[Winehole23]

you said the US was complicit in murder. you backed away from that later, in fact explicitly disclaimed it.

[Winehole23]

reread the thread, counselor. looks bad for you.

[Yonivore]

you said the US was complicit in murder. you backed away from that later, in fact explicitly disclaimed it.
I'm sure people are capable of reading for themselves. You were the only person who reversed their position.

The U. S. Government was complicit in two of the three crimes that led to the murder of 300+ Mexicans. I'm not a prosecutor and I wasn't addressing a court of law. It was an imprecise generalization of the overall scandal.

When you reversed yourself, after having it pointed out to you that you had actually agreed with my characterization, I clarified the point. I didn't back away. The U. S. is largely responsible for the deaths.

[Yonivore]

reread the thread, counselor. looks bad for you.
Whatever. I'm comfortable with my posts.

[Winehole23]

go ahead, muddy the waters after the fact. I don't care.

[TeyshaBlue]

The cartels were "largely resposible" (wtf does that even mean?) for their deaths.

[Yonivore]

The cartels were "largely resposible" (wtf does that even mean?) for their deaths.
And, the cartels got their guns and free passage from the U. S. Government.

Okay, TeyshaBlue, let's say you had an AK-47 in the trunk of your car and, while standing next to a crazed murderer at a carnival, you heard him say, "if I had a fucking gun I'd kill everyone in this place."

Do you, a) go to your trunk and get your AK-47 and had it to him or, b) do everything in your power to stop him from achieving that goal?

If you choose "a," does that make you "largely responsible" for what occurs next? I believe it does.

The U. S. Government, knowing the Mexican drug cartels were a bunch of crazed murderers, opened the gun shops, allowed the murderers guns, and let them walk back across the border with them -- to a predictable outcome.

[TeyshaBlue]

Your straw scenario is predicated upon the premise that there is a single source of guns, which is not the case.
Failed analogy.

[Yonivore]

Your straw scenario is predicated upon the premise that there is a single source of guns, which is not the case.
Failed analogy.
No, it doesn't. Being one of several or, the only source of guns, doesn't make you any less responsible for the murders committed with the guns you supplied.

If you give a gun to someone whom you know, in all likelihood, will use that gun to murder others -- regardless of who else is supplying them guns -- and that gun is used in a murder (as has been the case at least 300 times in Mexico) you're no less responsible just because there are other stupid people willing to arm the cartels.

I'm not claiming the U. S. is "largely responsible" for the tens of thousands of murders that have occurred at the hands of Mexican drug cartels...just the 300+ where Fast & Furious guns were used.

[TeyshaBlue]

No, it doesn't. Being one of several or, the only source of guns, doesn't make you any less responsible for the murders committed with the guns you supplied.

If you give a gun to someone whom you know, in all likelihood, will use that gun to murder others -- regardless of who else is supplying them guns -- and that gun is used in a murder (as has been the case at least 300 times in Mexico) you're no less responsible just because there are other stupid people willing to arm the cartels.

I'm not claiming the U. S. is "largely responsible" for the tens of thousands of murders that have occurred at the hands of Mexican drug cartels...just the 300+ where Fast & Furious guns were used.

I dont take isuue with resposibility...its the degrees thereof wherein we diagree.

[Yonivore]

I dont take isuue with resposibility...its the degrees thereof wherein we diagree.
Then, we can just disagree. I'm not absolving this corrupt administration of any responsibility.

I don't know how many of those murders would not have occurred if the U. S. Government had not supplied the murderers with the guns used to commit them. And, neither do you.

[scott]

This thread has become lest interesting than it was before.

[Yonivore]

This thread has become lest interesting than it was before.
Thanks for weighting in.

[Winehole23]

This thread has become lest interesting than it was before.feel free to resume the previous one

[TeyshaBlue]

Lest is best!:toast

[Yonivore]

feel free to resume the previous one
Why don't you just quit hijacking threads.

[Winehole23]

lol Yoni the relevance troll

[Winehole23]

the hijack would've died all on its own but for your petulant disavowals of the same

[Winehole23]

the thread was dead. I killed it, like I do so many others around here.

why did you reanimate it, Yoni? did you think you could rehabilitate your reputation? :lol:toast

[Yonivore]

the hijack would've died all on its own but for your petulant disavowals of the same
Please, once you start ankle-biting you don't let go.

[Winehole23]

praise from the master. i'm humbled.

[Yonivore]

This and the subsequent three posts -- all from you goading me -- is what you call "killing a thread?"


hard to say. yoni reversed field in his latest F&F thread. said he meant the opposite of what he actually said.
I'll keep that in mind.

[Winehole23]

This and the subsequent three posts -- all from you goading me -- is what you call "killing a thread?"I thought of it more at the time as encouraging others to acquaint (or re-acquaint) themselves with your style of argumentation, but I can see how you would take it personal.

[Winehole23]

perhaps i didn't actually kill the thread. wishful thinking, I guess.

[Winehole23]

does that make me guilty of attempted murder, counselor?

[Winehole23]

0eBrb00pdGw
I'll keep that in mind.

[Winehole23]

see what he did there at the very end? Jim Marshall threw the ball away.

Life lessons, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

By the way, I welcome the comparison to Jim Marshall. A two-time Pro Bowler who once held the record for most consecutive games played and still holds the record for most fumbles recovered -- one of which includes a fumble recovery that led to the Vikings winning the game in which he ran the wrong way.

Carry on with your ankle-biting.

[Winehole23]

btw, I'm a Jim Marshall fan too

[Winehole23]

I was giving him praise for throwing the ball away and encouraging you to do the same.

[scott]

I really just wanted to say "lest" again, tbh

[Yonivore]

I really just wanted to say "lest" again, tbh
I got that...which is why I thanked you for "weighting" in.

[scott]

I got that...which is why I thanked you for "weighting" in.

+1 :toast

[RandomGuy]

Your straw scenario is predicated upon the premise that there is a single source of guns, which is not the case.
Failed analogy.

Bingo.

These people would kill with any gun they could get.

[RandomGuy]

Then, we can just disagree. I'm not absolving this corrupt administration of any responsibility.


Nor would you absolve the previous corrupt administration, I'm sure, being the upright, fair citizen you are.


That snark said, the administration should be held accountable for its contributions, however minor to the problem. Somebody should get fired.

[Yonivore]

Nor would you absolve the previous corrupt administration, I'm sure, being the upright, fair citizen you are.
Nope. Which corruption would that be?


That snark said, the administration should be held accountable for its contributions, however minor to the problem. Somebody should get fired.
Fired? You don't believe crimes were committed for which someone should be prosecuted?

[Yonivore]

Bingo.

These people would kill with any gun they could get.
But, they killed with guns we gave them.

[ChumpDumper]

How would anyone know the intent of the end user of a gun by judging the straw purchaser?

[mouse]

Did an Atheist start this topic?