The thing that I don't understand about atheists is that you all feel that you must piss on the believers, and belittle their faith.
I am not religious, and don't go to church, but I am more than happy to let others believe what they want to believe. What is it about you guys that you can't just let show a little tolerance for folks that have a different viewpoint? You seem to be angry at the world.
I agree that saying someone you know is in your thoughts is a customary expression of condolence, as are prayers.
Saying it for people you don't know, murdered and in a way that raises yet again the question of whether we need to make a political choice that could save lives in the future, seems cheap and insincere.
I agree that saying someone you know is in your thoughts is a customary expression of condolence, as are prayers.
Saying it for people you don't know, murdered and in a way that raises yet again the question of whether we need to make a political choice that could save lives in the future, seems cheap and insincere.
I would find it borderline offensive if my family member was a victim.
Somebody donating blood, or time, or resources to help would mean much more. Even an offer of help not taken means more.
Doesnt CA already have strict gun control laws protecting its people from gun violence?
I agree that saying someone you know is in your thoughts is a customary expression of condolence, as are prayers.
Saying it for people you don't know, murdered and in a way that raises yet again the question of whether we need to make a political choice that could save lives in the future, seems cheap and insincere.
The thing that I don't understand about atheists is that you all feel that you must piss on the believers, and belittle their faith.
I am not religious, and don't go to church, but I am more than happy to let others believe what they want to believe. What is it about you guys that you can't just let show a little tolerance for folks that have a different viewpoint? You seem to be angry at the world.
When the Dims are back in control I Am sure they will create a whole new department of the .gov to address the problem. Then raise taxes to pay for it and accomplish absolutely nothing except create a bunch of gubbamint employee jobs/retirements that we all have to pay for.How about tripling our efforts to deal with the human side of the equation and doubling them on keeping guns out of the hands of people who have not demonstrated excellent judgment and stability?
That is a fair point, but if you want to OD on pain killers or heroine, that's your business. But don't ask me to then pay for your food or housing, healthcare... etc... because you don't work.its pretty interesting continuing to see the dichotomy in the arguments people make on similar subject types. I am guilty of it too. but the gun/drug argument is what in particular interests me at the moment.
Both drugs and guns are quiet adept at killing people when not used properly. some are fine with the individual use of drugs as long as you don't hurt someone else, but often they are not fine with the individual use of guns, even if they don't kill someone. while the opposite is true as well, gun toters tend to be against individual use of drugs even when no one is hurt.
speaking in generalities.
That is a fair point, but if you want to OD on pain killers or heroine, that's your business. But don't ask me to then pay for your food or housing, healthcare... etc... because you don't work.
Unfortunately a lot of these people have kids, so it isnt as easy as saying kill yourself if you want. The state will still bear the burden of raising the children. Who are at a high likelihood of winding up like their parents.
We are on track this year for 70k+ drug overdose deaths. For comparison 10-12k are murdered each year.