DEFEND THIS

DEFEND THIS

I FUCKING DARE YOU

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5399247/UNICEF-kids-rights-campaigner-jailed-rape-boy-13.html#ixzz57Y0kktRb
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5399247/UNICEF-kids-rights-campaigner-jailed-rape-boy-13.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Fuck Donald Trump

because obama was a broke nigger with no friends

No. Concerned citizen.

Obama was just a puppet for show and tell. (((They))) ran the country behind his back

Trump doesn’t stand in for anyone and does whatever the fuck he wants. It’s pretty bad, but it’s still the best timeline.

shooting was fake news based donal trump knew it and didn't five two fuck

praise kek

Pic one just looks like a photo op.
Neither of these people care that much about 0.0001% of the people they're president of. Especially when that many die every minute because of other shit in the country

TATER

And what did Obama do for you after this meeting in regards to guns? Just as much as Trump has so far.

Take your meds

Its fake but this liberal caricature of Trump is hilarious

>sits alone
who took the fucking picture then??

I would rather be at a BBQ with Trump than Obama desu. Therefor my vote is going to him. Obama seems so boring ugh

He tried to pass universal background checks, but the Senate filibustered it.

I'll never defend terrorist BLM

Sogay sogay sogay

>14 minutes
>claimed by a Russian propaganda group on Facebook

Proofs pls?

you bots are boring

sage & hide

Obama time delayed the camera like the absolute dork he was.

Virtue-signaling globalist nigger, desperate to disarm the American populace.
Fuck no, I won't defend that.

Barack Obama can rot in hell.

Shouldn’t that be Debbie Shultz’s job... ?

dumb nigger

Just out of curiocity, where ia trump on the right pic? Just looks like a generic club pic, I don't see him anywhere...

wtf i shouldve voted for obama

How does all this winning feel, you soyboy trumptard? Lmao

"an ancient Egyptian custom where during times of festivities, a skeleton would be brought out with people cheering “Drink and be merry for when you’re dead you will look like this.”"

One was a false flag, the other was not

why has no one else recognised this gem of a reply?

Could you leftist cunts stop thinking with feelings?
Approximately 6,600 people die EVERY SINGLE DAY in the USA, but this nigger mourned 26 and now he is better than anyone else, because feelings. Nope, just a hypocrite opportunistic asshole

lmaoo trump got no chill

Its probably because they would just call Trump mean names and stuff if he did. They haven't talked fondly of him hardly. If people would just feed into his ego a little bit I'm sure that maybe he would actually be useful.

The fuck does that even mean? You already have to have a background check.

Who gives a shit nobody died in both events.

reminding people of the gay nightclub shooting

clearly standing up for the LGBT community

***ATTENTION ATTENTION***
OP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT WORKING FOR PUTIN TO UNDERMINE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE

Muellers investigation has found Russian agents supporting BLM, Bernie Sanders and pro gun control. Report all Russian psyop threads.
Your IP is currently being backtraced and the cyber police will be notified, Ivan.

United Nations Rapes Children!!!

Former UNICEF consultant Peter Newell admitted three counts of indecent assault and two counts of buggery and was sentenced to six years, eight months in prison.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5399247/UNICEF-kids-rights-campaigner-jailed-rape-boy-13.html#ixzz57Y0kktRb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5399247/UNICEF-kids-rights-campaigner-jailed-rape-boy-13.html

this.
>uuuh h-hi i didn't see you there, i-i-i-i was just medinatin all the lost children

Based

...

The Rabbit Hole is getting some Light.

Top Management found Guilty of taking advantage of the most helpless people they can find.

Obama was also out to take our rights away using sorrow as a scapegoat.

Obama was in on the false flag and Trump wasn't.

>6 years
>for a traumatising event
>justice

>DEFEND THIS

Obama sitting alone?
Who's taking this propaganda picture of that sociopathic warcriminal that brought slavery back to North-Africa with Libya regime change?

he probably just thinking about how they gonna move all the little kids

Sage and report.

(((Newell))) are we supposed to be surprised?

You mean that thing that already exists?

Go ahead and try to buy a gun in the USA without a background check then. Fuck, go to a gun show and try to exploit that "gun show loophole" you undoubtedly parrot like a fucking idiot.

hard to defend obama he was siting alone doing nothing

Defend this, Shlomo

Kek

>chad Trump enjoying himself and having a good time
Whats the problem with this?

So fucking what? what does the president saying sorry about your kids death achieve? cunt he / she isn't coming back from the dead.

Shit happens, someone shot up a school, live and forget.

Because obama is a publicity whore and people didn't want trump there.

IGNORE AND HIDE SHILL THREADS
THEY BELONG AT THE BOTTOM END OF THE CATALOG
Anything else is futile, if they see shill treads with 300 replies, that's all they need to know that Sup Forums is ripe for more shilling.
Don't forget that many shill threads are unoriginal and you can determine if that's the case by searching through text portions like archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/insert text here/type/op/ or by image like archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/image/Jv2XBb0uxcavBrh9wgsWbA/type/op/

THE PROCLIVITY TO attribute responsibility for unfortunate life events to the victims of
misfortune has been well established (Lerner & Miller, 1978; Muller, Caldwell, & Hunter, 1993;
Ryan, 1971). This phenomenon of “blaming the victim” allows the observer to justify the
victimization by unintentionally distorting reality to find defects, behavioral or characterological,
in the victim which would warrant maltreatment (Ryan, 1971).
Several theorists have attempted to explain the tendency of blaming the victim. Lerner’s (1980)
just world theory posits that people have a need to perceive the world as one in which there is no
uch thing as an innocent victim: a just and fair world in which all victims deserve to be victims.
This belief serves an important adaptive function in two ways: it affords a palatable explanation of
past misfortunes, and it offers a sense of perceived certainty and control over future misfortunes
(Lerner & Miller, 1978). Because the belief in a just world serves as such a useful coping strategy,
subscribers may hesitate to relinquish their conviction when confronted with events that threaten
its validity. Instead, they may develop “irrational strategies” and, for example, reinterpret the
outcome of an unfortunate event (e.g., the victim’s suffering is minimized), the cause of the event
(e.g., the victim’s suffering is a result of his or her actions), or the victim’s character (e.g., the
victim’s suffering is a result of his or her personal qualities) (Lerner, 1980). A female rape victim,
for example, may be seen as having caused or contributed to her own victimization by being in an
unsafe neighborhood. This belief helps make sense of the victimization, and it lends the observer
a false sense of security and predictability about the future.

A second theory which attempts to explain victim blaming is Shaver’s (1970) defensive
attribution theory. According to Shaver’s theory, perceived similarity (i.e., similar beliefs, values,
and personal characteristics) of observer and victim determines the extent to which the victim will
be ascribed responsibility. As perceived observer-victim similarity decreases, victim blame in-
creases. Blaming the victim is suggested to be a self-protective coping mechanism which defends
the observer from the belief that (a) he or she could be held responsible if in a similar situation in
the future (blame-avoidance); and (b) that a similar misfortune could happen to him or her
(harm-avoidance) (Shaver, 1970).
Even if similar to the victim in some ways, observers may deny these similarities and cognitively
create or emphasize observer-victim differences to help reduce feelings of personal vulnerability
and threat (Gump & Kulik, 1995). The observer needs to perceive him or herself as “a different
kind of person” than the victim (Shaver, 1970). Gump and Kulik (1995) demonstrated this
“self-protective similarity bias” by presenting participants with a model whose personality and
HIV-relevant risk behaviors (e.g., how well they knew previous sexual partners, if they used
condoms) were typical of their own, and whose HIV status was either positive, negative, or
unknown. As predicted, participants who were told the model was HIV-positive, in comparison to
negative or unknown, rated their own personalities and HIV-relevant behaviors as significantly
more dissimilar to the model’s.

The kids from the latest shooting didn't even want to talk to Trump. No wonder he just said fuck it and went partying.

Child sexual abuse is a worldwide epidemic. Finkelhor (1994) examined international prevalence
rates by reviewing survey findings of extant data in 20 major countries. Social taboos and a lack
of consensus for the definition of child sexual abuse, among other factors, may serve to conceal the
true scope of the problem (Crooks & Baur, 1996). In 1994, 3 million cases of maltreatment were
reported in the United States (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1996). Reports of
sexual abuse constituted 14% of those cases, however it may be “the most underreported form of
child maltreatment because of the secrecy that so often characterizes sexual abuse cases” (Sattler,
1998, p. 680). The majority of child maltreatment reports (e.g., 56% in 1994) go unsubstantiated
(National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1996).
With all of these children suffering from such maltreatment, whom do we hold responsible? And
what factors are involved in that decision-making process? Numerous researchers have explored
factors (e.g., victim-offender relationship, offender gender, victim response) that may be important
in attributing responsibility in cases of child sexual abuse (Broussard & Wagner, 1988; Broussard,
Wagner, & Kazelskis, 1991; Hunter, Goodwin, & Wilson, 1992; Kalichman, 1992; Maynard &
Wiederman, 1997; Ringwalt & Earp, 1988; Wagner, Aucoin, & Johnson, 1993; Waterman &
Foss-Goodman, 1984).
In contrast to the large body of extant literature on blaming the victims and offenders of child

exual abuse, few studies have emphasized the assignment of responsibility to the nonoffending
parents (i.e., neither parent was the abuser). The primary purpose of this study was to investigate
the tendency to assign parental responsibility for extrafamilial child sexual abuse as a function of
victim age, victim gender, and observer gender.
Age of the child.
It has been well documented that older victims of abuse are assigned greater
responsibility than younger victims (Kalichman, 1992; Wagner, Aucoin, & Johnson, 1993; Wa-
terman & Foss-Goodman, 1984). While younger children are perceived as incapable of sexual
consent and lacking sufficient sexual maturity, children approaching or in their teenage years are
likely viewed as “quasi-adults” who are able to understand sexual meanings and engage in sexual
activities consentingly (Finkelhor, 1984, p. 115; Maynard & Wiederman, 1997). Furthermore, older
children are believed to be better physically able to defend themselves (Maynard & Wiederman,
1997; Waterman & Foss-Goodman, 1984).
Gender of the child.
Frequently, female victims of sexual assault are depicted as being provocative
instigators of their own abuse (Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Glaser & Frosh, 1993; Thomas,
1991). Howard (1984a, 1984b) suggests that stereotypes defining the “normal victim”— one with
whom we sympathize, but whom we also hold at least partially responsible for their own
victimization due to personal characteristics, such as being passive or submissive—play a role in
the blaming process of female victims. Accordingly, female victims may receive more blame than
male victims because they best reflect the stereotype of the normal victim. When comparing victims
of rape and robbery, Howard (1984b) found that female victims of both assault categories received
more blame than male victims. Statistically, females are more often the victim.

Gender of observer.
Prior attributional research indicates that there are strong gender differences
in assigning responsibility. In cases of rape (Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Bottoms, 1993; Deitz,
Blackwell, Daley, & Bentley, 1982; Ward, 1988), wife assault (Hillier & Foddy, 1993), child
molestation (Bottoms, 1993; Isquith, Levine, & Scheiner, 1993; Waterman & Foss-Goodman,
1984), and child physical abuse (Muller, Caldwell, & Hunter, 1993) results have illustrated that
males, in comparison to females, assign more responsibility to victims. Because the majority of
sexual assault victims are female and their perpetrators male, the defensive attribution theory
suggests that males would identify more with the perpetrator and therefore assign more responsi-
bility to the victim (Hillier & Foddy, 1993).
Maternal and Paternal Attributions of Responsibility
In our society there exists a powerful and distinct stereotyped expectation of mothers as loving
and nurturant, and responsible for the “emotional atmosphere” and overall well-being of the family
(Caplan, 1990; Croghan & Miell, 1995; Glaser & Frosh, 1993; Muller, Caldwell, & Hunter, 1993;
Swift, 1995; Waterman & Foss-Goodman, 1984). Even after a child has been abused, nonoffending
mothers are often elected to care for the child and protect the child from further abuse (Sattler,
1998). Waterman and Foss-Goodman (1984) investigated the impact of several relevant victim and
offender characteristics on the tendency to assign responsibility for intra- and extrafamilial child
sexual. In the case of extrafamilial abuse, responsibility assigned to the nonoffending parents was
examined. Their results indicated that both parents were assigned some degree of responsibility for
the abuse, with nonoffending mothers receiving significantly more responsibility than nonoffend-

METHOD
Participants
Participants were 145 (64 male, 81 female) undergraduate students at Radford University who
were participating in the psychology department’s human subjects pool. Participants received extra
credit for one hour of participation. The mean age of respondents was 20.5 years (
SD
5
4.3). The
sample consisted of 90% Caucasian, 5% African American, and 1% Asian American. The
remaining 3% selected the “other” category. Of the students sampled, 37% had less than 1 year of
college, 7% 1 year of college, 16% 2 years of college, 21% 3 years of college, 12% 4 years of
college, and 7% more than 4 years of college. The majority (91%) reported being single.
Materials
Attributions of responsibility.
An adaptation of the written description of child sexual abuse
developed by Waterman and Foss-Goodman (1984) was employed. The vignette describes a
situation in which a 35-year-old neighbor induces a child to engage in sexual activity. Against this
common background, the child’s gender and age varied systematically. In addition, the gender of
the observer was examined, creatin
g a 2 (Victim Age)
3
2 (Victim Gender)
3
2 (Observer Gender)
between-subjects design with eight vignette conditions. Participants were randomly assigned to
condition.
The victim ages investigated (6 and 13 years old) were selected because there appears to be an
increase in vulnerability for both single and multiple victimizations at ages 6 –7 and at ages 10 –12
(Finkelhor, 1986; Long & Jackson, 1991). Within these ranges, the ages of 7 and 12 appear to be
of particularly high risk. Thus, the ages 6 and 13 were chosen to both include and extend slightly

n regard to victim-offender relationship, the Department of Justice reported that in 1992 an
acquaintance (vs. a family member or a stranger) was the offender in 50% of female rape cases
involving children under 12 years of age, and in 65% of cases involving children between 12 and
17 years of age (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994). Using an acquaintance (i.e., neighbor) as the
offender in the vignette was, therefore, appropriate and highly representative of actual sexual abuse
situations. We avoided naming the individuals in the vignette (i.e., the child, mother, father,
neighbor) so that any confounding associations the observers may have had with particular names
would be obviated.
The child sexual abuse vignette (CSAV) used was as follows:
A mother and father are home one afternoon with their 6-year-old (13-year-old) daughter (son), who is of normal
intelligence. The mother and father are spending the day painting one of the rooms inside their home. The girl (boy) is
outside in the backyard when her (his) next-door neighbor, a 35-year-old man, approaches and asks her (him) to join him
for some ice cream.
Once inside his home, the neighbor gives the girl (boy) some ice cream and tells her (him) that they are going to play
a little game together. The neighbor tells her (him) that she (he) will really enjoy the game and that it will feel good. He
gets her (him) to lie down on his couch, and begins rubbing her (his) thighs with his hands, then kissing her (his) face and
neck. The girl (boy) doesn’t know what to do. The neighbor continues fondling her (his) body and then slowly undresses
her (him). He lies on top of her (him) and fondles her (his) buttocks and genitalia. He has an orgasm while rubbing himself
against the girl (boy), and warns her (him) not

>hold on just a minute mister president, can...can you just put your hand on your face like you're thinking but also sad....yeah that's right....yeah perfect alright one second anddddd got it nicely done sir

After reading the vignette, participants indicated the degree to which the child, mother, and father
(a) were responsible for what happened; (b) were to blame for what happened; (c) caused the abuse;
and (d) could have prevented the abuse. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale, from
not at all
(1)
to
totally
(5), to indicate their responses for the questions concerning responsibility and causality,
and a 5-point Likert scale, from
disagree strongly
(1) to
agree strongly
(5) to indicate their
responses for the statements concerning blame and prevention.
Perceptions of Perceived Similarity.
Participants used a 5-point Likert scale, from
disagree
strongly
(1) to
agree strongly
(5), to indicate their responses to the following four questions which
were designed to assess perceptions of personal similarity to the victim: (a) I feel that I am similar
to the child; (b) I identify with the child; (c) I feel a sense of sameness with the child; and (d) The
child reminds me of myself. These items were adapted from questions developed by Muller (1991)
and were combined and analyzed as a single similarity factor. The coefficient alpha for the four
items was (
a
5
.89).
Procedure
When signing up for the study, participants were told that they would be taking part in a study
on family issues and personal attitudes. Participants read and signed a consent form, and then
completed questions concerning demographic information and the CSAV questionnaire in mixed-
sex groups of approximately 15 to 30 students. No potential participants declined to participate and
no one withdrew while participating. The questionnaire, which was anonymous, was counterbal-
anced to control for possible order effects. On both forms, participants were asked about respon-

RESULTS
Twelve items on the questionnaire asked participants to rate the degree of responsibility, blame,
causality, and prevention capability attributed to the child and both parents regarding the CSAV.
To reduce the number of variables, a principle components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was performed on these 12 items. Four factors with eigenvalues greater than one emerged: parent
responsibility, child responsibility, familial causality, and parental prevention. Table 1 shows the
factor loadings for each item.
Effects of Victim Age, Victim Gender, and Observer Gender
A 2 (Victim Age)
3
2 (Victim Gender)
3
2 (Observer Gender) multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was performed on scores for the four factors. Tables 2 and 3 present the means and
standard deviations for male and female participants’ attributions of responsibility directed toward
the child and the parents. There were no significant multivariate interactions. There was a
multivariate effect for victim age, multivariate
F
(1, 133)
5
3.20,
p
,
.05. Subsequent univariate
Table 1. Factor Loadings for the Responsibility, Blame, Causality, and Pre-
vention Items
Items
Loading
Factor 1
To what degree is the mother responsible for what happened?
.79
To what degree is the father responsible for what happened?
.79
The mother is to blame for what happened.
.85
The father is to blame for what happened.
.85
Factor 2
To what degree is the child responsible for what happened?
.79
The child could have done something to prevent the abuse.
.76
The child is to blame for what happened.
.81
Factor 3
To what degree was the abuse caused by the mother?
.85
To what degree was the abuse caused by the father?
.85
To what degree was the abuse caused by the child?
.68
Factor 4

tests indicated that there was a univariate main effect of victim age for child responsibility. As
predicted, older children were ascribed more responsibility than younger children, univariate
F
(1,
133)
5
3.92,
p
,
.05. There was also a univariate main effect of victim age for parent
responsibility. As predicted, both parents were ascribed more responsibility when the child was
younger than when the child was older, univariate
F
(1, 133)
5
6.10,
p
,
.05.
There was also a multivariate main effect for observer gender, multivariate
F
(1, 133)
5
4.31,
p
,
.01. Univariate tests showed that this effect occurred on the child responsibility and familial
causality variables. As hypothesized, male participants attributed more responsibility to the victim
than did female participants, univariate
F
(1, 133)
5
5.03,
p
,
.05. Male participants also attributed
more causality to the victim and the parents than did female participants, univariate
F
(1, 133)
5
9.82,
p
,
.01. Contrary to prediction, there was no significant multivariate effect of victim gender
on responsibility, multivariate
F
(1, 133)
5
1.37,
p
.
.05. Female victims were not assigned more
responsibility than male victims.
In addition, correlations among the four factor scores and perceived similarity were performed.
The results presented in Table 4 demonstrate that child responsibility was negatively correlated
with perceived similarity; That is, greater attributions of responsibility directed toward the victim
were associated with low levels of perceived similarity to the victim. While this correlation is
statistically significant, the two variables share only 3.24% of their variablity.

to “totally”) of the responsibility or causality of the abuse to each individual; or (b) agreed to some
degree (i.e., from “mildly” to “strongly”) that the individuals were to blame or could have
prevented the abuse. The table appears to indicate that, on balance, both parents were attributed
greater responsibility, blame, causality, and prevention capability for the abuse than was the child.
A chi-square analysis indicates that the null hypothesis of independence between attribution of
responsibility and target of attribution (mother vs. child) can be rejected,
x
2
(1)
5
43.26,
p
,
.0001.
Similarly, the null hypothesis of independence between attribution of prevention capability and
target of attribution (mother vs. child) can be rejected,
x
2
(1)
5
4.65,
p
,
.05. Since the percentages
of respondents who attributed responsibility and prevention capability, respectively, to the mother
are identical to the percentages who made these attributions for the father, it is clear that the
hypothesis of independence between each of these types of attributions and target of attribution
(father vs. child) can also be rejected. For the remaining two attributions (blame and causality) the
hypothesis of independence between attribution and target of attribution could not be rejected.
DISCUSSION
The findings support prior research demonstrating that older child victims are held more
responsible than younger child victims (Kalichman, 1992; Wagner, Aucoin, & Johnson, 1993;
Waterman & Foss-Goodman, 1984). In a similarly-designed vignette study of extrafamilial child
sexual abuse, Maynard and Wiederman (1997) found that observers attributed less responsibility
and less blame to an adult perpetrator when the victim was 15 years old versus 7 years old. They
also reported that participants rated the scenarios depicting a 15-year-old as significantly less
abusive than those o

As children age and their bodies begin to mature and develop, they may be at a higher risk of
sexual abuse. Brownmiller (1975) reported that older adolescents (15 to 19 years old) are at the
greatest risk for being raped. From our findings and the results of prior investigations it appears that
older children, who are more likely than younger children to disclose (Sattler, 1998), may also be
at a higher risk of being held responsible for their abuse.
It was also expected that the nonoffending parents of the victim would be ascribed greater
responsibility when the victim was younger. The findings supported that prediction. In one of the
few studies investigating the role of the parents in cases of extrafamilial abuse, Waterman and
Foss-Goodman (1984) found that the victim’s age (7 or 15 years old) was unrelated to the amount
of parental blame assigned. Our results suggest, however, that the perceived responsibility for a
child’s well-being and safety is a function of his or her age. The closer to adulthood a child
becomes, the more responsible the child and the less responsible the nonoffending parents.
We hypothesized that female victims would receive greater attributions of responsibility than
male victims. Although the findings were in the predicted direction, no significant differences were
found. In a study on child physical abuse, Muller, Caldwell, and Hunter (1993) discovered that
Table 5. Frequencies of Attributions of Responsibility, Blame, Causality, and Prevention Capability
(
N
5
145)
Recipient
Responsibility (%)
Blame (%)
Causality (%)
Prevention (%)
Child
31
10
25
34
Mother
70
13
32
46
Father
70
14
32
46
Note
. The above represents the percentage of the sample that: (a) assigned some portion of the responsibility
or causality to each individual; or (b) agreed to some degree that the individuals were to blame or could have
prevented the abuse.

Concerning child sexual abuse and rape, female victims are often assigned greater amounts of
responsibility than male victims (Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Glaser & Frosh, 1993; Thomas,
1991). Nonetheless, the current investigation found that male and female victims of sexual abuse
were attributed similar amounts of responsibility. Society may be becoming more aware and
understanding of the epidemic of child sexual abuse, and thereby more accepting of the belief that
the child victim of sexual abuse, irrespective of gender, is not responsible for his or her victim-
ization. Dhooper, Royse, and Wolfe’s (1991) statewide survey of adults living in Kentucky
indicated that the residents possessed a relatively good understanding of the major characteristics
of child abuse victims and perpetrators, although many subscribed to the stereotype of child abusers
as mentally ill. More recently, a study conducted in the United States and Puerto Rico found that
a sample of American college students demonstrated awareness of the magnitude of the problem
and characteristics of sexually abused victims and perpetrators (Back Sattler, 1997).
Numerous studies have illustrated that females are more pro-victim than males (Bell, Kuriloff,
& Lottes, 1994; Muller, Caldwell, & Hunter, 1993; Ward, 1988; Waterman & Foss-Goodman,
1984). We hypothesized that male participants would attribute greater responsibility to the victim
and nonoffending parents than would female participants. The findings supported this assertion:
Males attributed more responsibility to the victim and assigned more causality to both victims and
parents than did females. These results are consistent with Shaver’s (1970) defensive attribution

It should be noted that the majority of participants (69%) did not attribute any responsibility to
the child victim. This finding is similar to that of Waterman and Foss-Goodman (1984) who
reported that 61% of their sample in a vignette study of child sexual abuse did not attribute any
“fault” to the victim.
We proposed that nonoffending mothers would be assigned greater responsibility than nonof-
fending fathers. The results did not support our proposal. Nonoffending mothers and fathers were
assigned similar amounts of responsibility. Overall, 70% of the sample ascribed some portion of the
responsibility to both the mother and the father. Only 7% said the mother was “very much”
responsible for the abuse, compared to 6% for the father. It is possible that these findings are due
in part to recent changes in our social milieu, such as, a greater emphasis on fathers’ roles in child
rearing. Little research exists in this area and more is needed to further our understanding of why
and under what conditions the parents in cases of extrafamilial abuse are held responsible

Trump's way older and is less tolerant than younger prez... and I think most old people lose their fucking mind by the age of 50.

I hate Obama but why does a bbq have to do with the presidency. This is why your country is fucked.

>waaaaaaaaaaaaah i want the pwesident to gimme a hug

having THE president waste time trying to console people one by one is not an efficient use of his time. there are millions of people who need consoling in america, you think he's gonna go to every single one?

trump is making deals and working hard to Make America Great Again for all americans, not just a couple parents of an alleged shooting

next talking point, shareblue?

I would say obama was experiencing guilt (for the murders he caused after deciding ot use mkultra to push for a (failed) gun grab)) but that would require him to actually be capable of feeling guilt.

easy context and your inferences.
photo on left is most likey presidencal propagandaist photo and not incidental.
stupid tard.

>caring about a hoax
nah.

this.
he is literally just a glow in the dark cia nigger project, groomed from birth to be a public representative of the 'deep state'. He is not a real person.

Both are kikes. What to defend?

My president is THICC

>this user asks the real question
>no one has an answer for him

Do you think they fucked the skeletons?

What about chicago's daily mass murders? Obama could have at least spoken about this.

He didn't care about that, he cared about a few thugs like mike brown.

hot

not surprised t b h

Because everyone with a brain knows it was a false flag.

A disco party sounds more fun than hospital

Who cares? Trump gave just as little shits as everyone else who wasn't affected did.

Including the retard who wrote this tweet only to attack him.

Damn did Trump kill those kids.
No
Then who cares?

Trump could break down crying
He could give a kidney
He could help pass a gun ban

And the left would still find something to bitch about.

Fuck them. He knows he has a slim chance at re-election that's even assuming he wants to run as the incumbent.

>implying you weren't furiously masturbating to blacked.com 12 minutes after the shooting happened

Because trump doesn’t have time for false flag shootings

Oh wait...
That makes me kinda sad...
Poor glow in the dark fucker
Spent his whole life serving the Deep State
Fake marriage to a beard to cover his homo
Worked for the CIA his whole life
No real friends
Just spooks and handlers
>fuck that
You make your bed you lie in it
CIA motherfucker

Ah yes, i was looking forward to a good heap of autist for breakfast

Kek

OBONGO BTF
>HOW WILL DEMS EVER RECOVER?

Bots are getting worse desu
Sage

It goes in all fields

Aren't there dozens of accounts of top level officials misdirecting him and obstructing highly destructive deciscions like accepting sessions resignation and firing Rosenstein?

This is already old

Did you read the indictment?

lyin KIKE