NuttMegg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
- Messages
- 7,980
- Reaction score
- 85,820
Maybe had the question included "shot in the back", "father of 2 kids", etec, the outcome would have been different. Imo the outfit has a good reputation, and chose the most succinct question, was the murder acceptable. Once they start including things unrelated to what they wanted to learn, then it clouds the outcome, with several qualifiers, how can they narrow down the basic question. Anyway they did goof in design, imo, by leaving that huge neutral category so vague. They should have let ppl choose "haven't heard about it" to distinguish from implied "neutral on the morality" of it.You know what, I'm not sure that I actually believe poll companies. The fact that 77% of any demographic consider shooting someone in the back is anything other than completely unacceptable makes my mind boggle. That simply cannot be true. It just can't.
Jmo, pls don't shoot the messenger, I am not saying whether shooting someone to death in the back is worse than doing it from the front. The person is dead. That's a question for the jury.
They wanted to know if the murder was acceptable, then to illuminate attitudes amongst age groups.