• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Josh Duggar (of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting) admits to molesting.... [W:171,357]

CaptainCourtesy said:
Your acceptance is not required for it to be accurate. We don't know of the bias of authorities. We DO know of your bias with your child. That automatically disqualifies you from making the assessment.



I'd go a little further than that. We're not talking about a little kid. A 14 year old has the cognitive abilities to understand his behaviors. I would want a solid assessment of what is happening, counseling to address the issues and to assist him in not doing this again. This is not something to be minimized.



What do you mean by "official".
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, no it isn't. If a crime has been committed, and counseling is mandated, the parents have no say in disputing that. So, no, it is NOT ultimately the parents decision who addresses their ill behavior.
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, I do blame the Duggars for not getting others involved. It is because of their ultra-conservative rigidity that they potentially put their other children at risk. From what I see, the Duggars did not act prudently. They did not respond to the first incident and responded to the second by sending Josh to what seems like a "work-camp". The type of counseling that is required in these cases was not provided, and I see no evidence that the girls received any counseling at all, something that is also pretty necessary. The appearance that the girls seem well adjusted is irrelevant. That doesn't mean they are and doesn't mean they may not have issues in the future. But if, for argument's sake, Josh never molested again, and the girls he molested have had minimal effect from it, this was not due to the parents behavior in any way. It was pure luck. I do not think that, based on what we know, law enforcement should have been involved. I'm on the fence about CPS, but lean more towards them being involved only because the parents did not provide the assistance that this situation called for. If parents act prudently in a situation similar to this one, there isn't a reason for CPS to be involved, unless more problems develop.
Click to expand...

None of this is anything more than your own ideological opinion.

On a de facto basis, the simple fact of the matter is that the Duggar family DID snub government services, and use their own best judgement instead. Quite frankly, I applaud them for that decision. I would have done the same.

You don't like it? Too bad. :shrug:

I reserve the right to ignore, work around, or otherwise subvert any and every law, needless bureaucratic institution, or intrusive agency which I feel to work counter to either my own best interests, or the interests of my loved ones. If those bureaucracies have a problem with that, then they are going to have to press the issue by force.

Quite frankly, they're going to have a hard time doing so, when I make a deliberate point of not doing anything to draw their Orwellian attention to my homelife to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
None of this is anything more than your own ideological opinion.
Click to expand...

No, YOUR position is an ideological opinion. Mine is a PROFESSIONAL opinion, which trumps your ideology.

On a de facto basis, the simple fact of the matter is that the Duggar family DID snub government services, and use their own best judgement instead. Quite frankly, I applaud them for that decision. I would have done the same.

You don't like it? Too bad. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And, quite frankly, the Duggars did a disservice to their children by handling it in the way that they did. The didn't act for a year, creating an environment that fostered a repeat of the behavior, and then they gave their children completely inadequate counseling. And if you would do the same, then I would question your fitness as a parent and hope that your children would be removed. And if you didn't like that? Too bad.

I reserve the right to ignore, work around, or otherwise subvert any and every law, needless bureaucratic institution, or intrusive agency which I feel to work counter to either my own best interests, or the interests of my loved ones. If those bureaucracies have a problem with that, then they are going to have to press the issue by force.
Click to expand...

Your interests are irrelevant when it comes to criminal acts or the safety of your children. You want to put your children at risk by not acting on significant behaviors, then you deserve whatever force authorities enact on you.

Quite frankly, they're going to have a hard time doing so, when I make a deliberate point of not doing anything to draw their Orwellian attention to my homelife to begin with.
Click to expand...

And see? If you DON'T create problems or not act on problems, you would never have an issue with the authorities. As I said, the Duggars did not act prudently in this matter. There were ways they could have without involving any governmental organization.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, YOUR position is an ideological opinion. Mine is a PROFESSIONAL opinion, which trumps your ideology.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, Cap, but I think your "profession" is a load of overly-politicized crock and junk science. It would the very last place I would go for help either on a personal level, or with regards to my children, for that exact reason.

As for the rest, none of it changes the fact that the "laws" you're appealing to here are only relevant insofar as they are enforceable. In the Duggars' case, they rather clearly weren't, because the Duggars' made damn sure that they weren't.

I would do the same. Frankly, I'd argue that they only real mistake they made here was filing a report at all. If there's anything a career spent wading through the muck of military bureaucracy has taught me, it's that the less of an unnecessary paper trail you have following you, the better.

The system, and the soulless bureaucratic machinery and self-interested powers which lie behind it, are not your friends. They'll chew you up and spit you back out again afterwards without thinking twice about it.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Hate to break it to you, Cap, but I think your "profession" is a load of overly-politicized crock and junk science. It would the very last place I would go for help either on a personal level, or with regards to my children, for that exact reason.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, Gath, but your opinion on my profession is pretty irrelevant as you have never shown any knowledge whatsoever on that profession, AND your ideological bias is your basis for you opinion on the profession. Makes it pretty worthless.

As for the rest, none of it changes the fact that the "laws" you're appealing to here are only relevant insofar as they are enforceable. In the Duggars' case, they rather clearly weren't, because the Duggars' made damn sure that they weren't.
Click to expand...

That comment has absolutely zero logic. Just because a crime wasn't enforced or reported doesn't mean a crime didn't happen. Stop burying your head in the sand.

I would do the same. Frankly, I'd argue that they only real mistake they made here was filing a report at all. If there's anything a career spent wading through the muck of military bureaucracy has taught me, it's that the less of an unnecessary paper trail you have following you, the better.
Click to expand...

IF they had taken care of the situation in a manner that matched the significance of said situation, I would agree. No report needed to be filed. They didn't manage the situation effectively. The outcome was pure luck.

The system, and the soulless bureaucratic machinery and self-interested powers which lie behind it, are not your friends. They'll chew you up and spit you back out again afterwards without thinking twice about it.
Click to expand...

The sky is NOT falling.
 
Gathomas88 said:
He copped a feel a couple of times, got his peepee smacked for it, and - as far as anyone knows - hasn't done anything similar since.

How would getting a permanent paper trail going on the kid have helped matters?
Click to expand...

Thats incredibly insulting to the victims. If you do have an older brother and he fondled you in your sleep, could you excuse it as "oh well he just copped a feel on me".

Gath, I have always defended the Duggars but I cannot defend downplaying and ignoring little girls getting touched inappropriately by their brother or friend. If my 6 year old gets any unwanted touches where she shouldn't I would not sleep until the person that did it was getting something done to them for doing it. I am very lenient on looking the other way on minor crimes, I've said it before I'm not a snitch in any way, but when the crime hurts a child I'll be on the phone to the police in an instant.
 
beefheart said:
But...that is how religious zealots handle these problems...and it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

No..... that is how some families "handle" these problems. This includes religous, the secular and the apparent atheists. It is also includes socially conservative and sociall progressive families- and everything in between.

At the end of the day, this variety of people described above share somethings in common with each other as humans:
- a desire for privacy
- a degree of sympathy for the molester

The way they handle it is the only difference. A wealthy, progressive secular family that I knew growing up sent their 16 year old "Chester" (he disappeared from school one day) on an expensive private tour of the Carribean where he and other wayward progressives with a variety of problems were purportedly being reformed by "special counceling" sessions, teamwork by building houses for the poor and though engaging in groovy cultural enrichment activities.

Of course, there was plenty of time for receation too. The fact that the "cultural enrichment" and hanging around "recreation time" probably put him in contact with children in settings with little oversite was ignored. After all, he was not a convicted chester- right? In addition, progressives would never place the perpertrator ahead of the victim (or future victims)- right?
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
I've always liked the Duggars. I've always defended the Duggars when people called the crazy or weird or horrible for having so many kids. But this time..... this time.... I'm completely and utterly disgusted. I'm so disgusted that I'm having a hard time finding words to express it.

Unsealed police report reveals 'Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar covered up after eldest son Josh confessed to repeatedly fondling girls when he was a teen - and case only went to police in 2006 because of Oprah concerns' | Daily Mail Online

Josh Duggar apologizes amid molestation allegations: ‘I acted inexcusably’ - The Washington Post

I will never watch another episode of their show again.
Click to expand...


I read someone who said it best: Living a repressed life and pretending we don't have basic biological urges and needs is not healthy. Not to say we should all start giving kids porn, but this goodie goodie lifestyle, expecting kids to always behave their best, always be responsible and God-loving and humble and helpful, never even so much as kissing someone before marriage....this does not make for a well adjusted happy adult.

I can understand why the parents didn't report him to authorities, but to send him to a "family friend" trooper, who is now in prison for 56 years for CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, is outrageous! They were totally trying to get rid of him for a while and not doing anything to help him with his problem. The behavior he exhibited was deviant and NOT normal curiosity. He molested CHILDREN multiple times, his sisters and one non-relative....little girls. NOT normal. And he is still that way, probably. You don't outgrow something like that.

There is no doubt in my mind that when he went to stay with that pedophile child porn trooper, that what they did was watch and read a lot of child and other porn, mags & movies, and who knows what all else. That's what people like the trooper do. It's a sickness.
 
JumpinJack said:
I read someone who said it best: Living a repressed life and pretending we don't have basic biological urges and needs is not healthy. Not to say we should all start giving kids porn, but this goodie goodie lifestyle, expecting kids to always behave their best, always be responsible and God-loving and humble and helpful, never even so much as kissing someone before marriage....this does not make for a well adjusted happy adult.
Click to expand...

Of course, all progressive families that encourage children to uhmmm "explore" their sexuality in their teen years, to adopt a vague new age sprituality that allows for pretty much any activity that one is interested in, and to always be "socially aware" raise well adjusted children who turn into well adjusted adults... .
 
Cryptic said:
Of course, all progressive families that encourage children to uhmmm "explore" their sexuality in their teen years, to adopt a vague new age sprituality that allows for pretty much any activity that one is interested in, and to always be "socially aware" raise well adjusted children who turn into well adjusted adults... .
Click to expand...

The post you responded said nothing like what you seem to think it says. No one has claimed there is some "magic formula" that garauntees the raising of well-adjusted children. Parents can the best job possible yet some traumatic event happens that causes the child to have issues

The point was that while there is no magic formula that produces well adjusted kids, there are formulas that are extremely unlikely to do so and raising children in a sexually repressive manner is one of the latter. And contrary to the simplistic right wing belief that "not sexually repressive" means "anything goes", it means avoiding the sort of nonsense that can be found in post #377
 
sangha said:
The point was that while there is no magic formula that produces well adjusted kids, there are formulas that are extremely unlikely to do so and raising children in a sexually repressive manner is one of the latter. And contrary to the simplistic right wing belief that "not sexually repressive" means "anything goes", it means avoiding the sort of nonsense that can be found in post #377
Click to expand...

My immediate family, and the assosciated extended families must really be bucking the "extremely unlikely" trend. Pretty much all of us were raised in a sexually repressive manner. That "repression" is both conservative catholic and evanglical based. Likewise, I am also raising my three children in a sexually "repressive" manner. They are part of a multi generational pattern of "repression"

Though I cant say that all of the 100 plus individuals (families with five, six or seven chidlren are common) in the sample group have been problem free, the vast overwhelming majority have. As far as my three "repressed" children go, there have been some discipline issues. There have also been alot of advanced placement courses and school honors. Who knows what the future holds..... .
 
Cryptic said:
Of course, all progressive families
Click to expand...
that encourage children to uhmmm "explore" their sexuality in their teen years, to adopt a vague new age sprituality that allows for pretty much any activity that one is interested in, and to always be "socially aware" raise well adjusted children who turn into well adjusted adults... .
Click to expand...



You're full of it.

Do all far-right evangelicals encourage their young daughters to submit to their older brothers? :roll:
 
Cryptic said:
My immediate family, and the assosciated extended families must really be bucking the "extremely unlikely" trend. Pretty much all of us were raised in a sexually repressive manner. That "repression" is both conservative catholic and evanglical based. Likewise, I am also raising my three children in a sexually "repressive" manner. They are part of a multi generational pattern of "repression"

Though I cant say that all of the 100 plus individuals (families with five, six or seven chidlren are common) in the sample group have been problem free, the vast overwhelming majority have. As far as my three "repressed" children go, there have been some discipline issues. There have also been alot of advanced placement courses and school honors. Who knows what the future holds..... .
Click to expand...

You can say whatever you like about your family and no one here can document the truth of falsity of those claims. In addition, how you are defining "sexually repressed" may be different than the way others define it.

That's why personal and anecdotal evidence has no value in debate.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Hate to break it to you, Gath, but your opinion on my profession is pretty irrelevant
Click to expand...

To the contrary, it's the only thing relevant if you're actually expecting me to voluntarily turn either myself, or my children, over to your quack counseling, or the draconian bureaucrats responsible for assigning it, for treatment. :lol:

I'm sorry, but do we live in some kind psychologist plutocracy here? Did I simply miss that particular memo? Last time I checked, it was not up to you, or anyone else, who seeks treatment for what, and where. Maybe you wish that it were, but it's not, at least not by any authority which I actually recognize, or have any intention of obeying.

I've also made it abundantly clear that I don't care about any of the laws you're appealing to here, so "crime" can suck my dick, for all it matters to me.

In point of fact, as far as I'm concerned, dealing with CPS is a bit like dealing with the "Secret Police" of a totalitarian state.

The Party says we should be happy with locally produced goods (which they are incapable of keeping on shelves)? That's nice. I'll just turn to the black market for the things they can't provide, and try to make damn sure I don't get caught.

The Party says we should report anyone who dissents? Sure, smile, wave, and all that jazz. You'd better believe that I'm not about to turn a life long friend over to the authorities if he ever voices a doubt, however, especially not given the fact that I'm just as likely to wind up in an interrogation chamber or secret prison in that scenario as he is.

It might offend the overbearing statist collectivists of the world, but the simple fact of the matter is that I, as an individual citizen, hold myself to be a sovereign actor unto myself. As such, I refuse to obey laws which I find to be offensive, unless forcibly compelled to do so.

You can think of it as being a rather "Hobbesian" philosophy if you like, but it is my own nevertheless.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
You're full of it.

Do all far-right evangelicals encourage their young daughters to submit to their older brothers? :roll:
Click to expand...

Spare me-

You are assuming that I sympathize with the Duggards when I do not. Heck, I have never seen their show, and cant spell their last name. Rather, I am stating what should be obvious to all but the most idealogicaly blind progressives:

- Progressives and religous conservatives are both equally likely to hide criminal sex acts involving family members when they sympathize with the perpertrator.
 
Cryptic said:
Spare me-
Click to expand...

You are assuming that I sympathize with the Duggards when I do not. Heck, I have never seen their show, and cant spell their last name. Rather, I am stating what should be obvious to all but the most idealogicaly blind progressives:

- Progressives and religous conservatives are both equally likely to hide criminal sex acts involving family members when they sympathize with the perpertrator.
Click to expand...



When you post BS don't be surprised when replies contain the same kind of BS.
 
americanwoman said:
Thats incredibly insulting to the victims. If you do have an older brother and he fondled you in your sleep, could you excuse it as "oh well he just copped a feel on me".

Gath, I have always defended the Duggars but I cannot defend downplaying and ignoring little girls getting touched inappropriately by their brother or friend. If my 6 year old gets any unwanted touches where she shouldn't I would not sleep until the person that did it was getting something done to them for doing it. I am very lenient on looking the other way on minor crimes, I've said it before I'm not a snitch in any way, but when the crime hurts a child I'll be on the phone to the police in an instant.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, however, the Duggars didn't "ignore" anything. By all outward appearances, they actually corrected the problem.

The "victims" also seem to be doing just fine. It's everyone else who's stirring up a fuss here. The "victims" haven't said word one about it, and seem to be living healthy, well-adjusted lives. If anything, all of this media frenzy is probably just tearing open old wounds that had otherwise healed over years ago.

No one is saying that what happened was right. However, lets keep things in perspective here. These girls weren't "raped." They were, at worst, fondled, and not over a particularly lengthy period of time before their parents discovered the behavior and put a stop to it either. There is no evidence to suggest that they suffered any lasting harm as a result of that.

It also happened a Hell of a long time ago, and the culprit was a very young teen who since reformed himself. I simply don't see any reason why we should necessarily tear that man's life apart over it, almost twenty years after the fact, when he has not only changed his ways, but has openly repented for his actions.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
No one was "raped." :shrug:
Click to expand...

But your argument about excusing sexual assault was that it was handled by the parents and didn't happen again. So how is that different than anything else? So long as they don't do it again, right? No reason to call in the cops for assault.
 
Ikari said:
But your argument about excusing sexual assault was that it was handled by the parents and didn't happen again. So how is that different than anything else? So long as they don't do it again, right? No reason to call in the cops for assault.
Click to expand...

Ummm... It's not?

I believe I already said that I wouldn't call the cops over a non-life threatening child on child "assault" either. Frankly, I wouldn't call the cops over an adult assault either, unless someone was threatening to track down and kill, or otherwise grievously harm, someone else.

If the problem corrects itself, or can be handled in house, there's no reason to involve the authorities.
 
sangha said:
You can say whatever you like about your family and no one here can document the truth of falsity of those claims. In addition, how you are defining "sexually repressed" may be different than the way others define it.

That's why personal and anecdotal evidence has no value in debate.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can accept that my assertions that my sexually "repressed" extended family is overwhelmingly free of serious problems and that my three sexually "repressed" children are well adjusted in school and with friends can not readily be proven, nor disproven.

That aside, why not:

A. Define the term "sexual repression"
B. cite some tangible evidence to show that children raised in a sexually "repressive" manner tend to be very poorly adjusted?

In short, what do you have to support your claim made here?

sangha said:
The point was that while there is no magic formula that produces well adjusted kids, there are formulas that are extremely unlikely to do so and raising children in a sexually repressive manner is one of the latter.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
I've also made it abundantly clear that I don't care about any of the laws you're appealing to here, so "crime" can suck my dick, for all it matters to me.

In point of fact, as far as I'm concerned, dealing with CPS is a bit like dealing with the "Secret Police" of a totalitarian state.
Click to expand...

There is no need for that kind of profanity in this thread.

And, as for "secret police", your statement is hyperbolic blather.

Attitudes like yours allow molesters to thrive.
 
beefheart said:
And, as for "secret police", your statement is hyperbolic blather.
Click to expand...

When it comes to dealing with wildly over-intrusive government agencies which claim the right to unilaterally and forcibly snatch children and destroy families over subjective value judgements and parental philosophies which differ from their own, heavily biased, views? I think not.

If the cowardly brain dead sheep of our society want to rely upon the heavy hand of government to save them from themselves, that is their business. I will not be counted among their number.

Government has a time and a place. In any but the most dire of circumstances, the family home is neither.

I quite frankly don't really care who might happen to say otherwise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom